Saunders v. St. Cloud 192 Pet Doc Hospital, LLC
224 So. 3d 336
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Dr. Amanda Saunders was hired as managing doctor by St. Cloud 192 Pet Doc Hospital, LLC and signed an employment agreement containing a broad arbitration clause covering "any claim or controversy that arises out of or relates to this agreement."
- Saunders sued Pet Doc in June 2016 for sex discrimination under an Osceola County ordinance and for negligent hiring, training, and supervision, alleging constructive termination from a hostile work environment.
- Pet Doc answered and moved to compel arbitration, arguing Saunders’s claims arose from the employment relationship created by the agreement and thus fell within the arbitration clause.
- The employment agreement also contained a zero-tolerance harassment/discrimination policy and required employee compliance with that policy.
- The trial court granted Pet Doc’s motion to compel arbitration; the Fifth District reversed, finding Saunders’s claims were not arbitrable because they did not require interpretation of the contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Saunders’s tort and statutory employment claims are subject to arbitration under the agreement’s broad "arising out of or relating to" clause | Saunders: claims arise from statutory duties and common-law negligence, not from the contract; they can be brought absent any employment agreement | Pet Doc: the employment agreement created the employment relationship and thus the claims arise from the agreement and fall within its broad arbitration clause | Reversed — claims not arbitrable. A tort/statutory claim must have a nexus requiring reference to or construction of the contract; mere existence of the agreement is insufficient |
| Whether the contract’s zero-tolerance harassment policy brings Saunders’s discrimination/negligence claims within arbitration | Saunders: she did not allege breach of the policy or that resolution requires construing that policy | Pet Doc: the policy reference shows the parties contemplated arbitration of harassment/discrimination claims | Held for Saunders — the policy did not evidence contemplation that such tort/statutory claims would be arbitrated because Saunders alleged no contract breach and resolution did not require contract interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1999) (broad "arising out of or relating to" language still requires a nexus to the contract; tort claims must implicate contract construction to be arbitrable)
- Sears Authorized Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Sullivan, 816 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2002) (cause of action that rests on failure to perform the agreement arises out of the contract)
- Terminix Int'l Co. v. Ponzio, 693 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (claims deriving from contractual undertaking are arbitrable)
- Beazer Homes Corp. v. Bailey, 940 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (duties created only by contract support arbitration of related disputes)
- Five Points Health Care Ltd. v. Alberts, 867 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (statutory rights that arise only from a contractual admission/support agreement can be arbitrable)