943 F. Supp. 2d 172
D.D.C.2013Background
- Skrynnikov alleges retaliation under the FCA and interference with FMLA/DCFMLA rights against Fannie Mae.
- Fannie Mae moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss the FMLA/DCFMLA claims under Rule 12(b)(6); arbitration of the FCA claim was also sought.
- Skrynnikov signed an Employment Application and Offer Letter acknowledging and agreeing to Fannie Mae's Dispute Resolution Policy mandating arbitration for employment-related claims.
- The Dispute Resolution Policy states it applies to claims involving a legally-protected right related to employment and reserves arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.
- Skrynnikov filed this action on March 23, 2011; the FCA claim was dismissed as qui tam on the government’s motion, leaving retaliation under the FCA and FMLA/DCFMLA claims asserted by Skrynnikov.
- The court held that the arbitration clause is enforceable under DC law and that all pending disputes, including arbitrability, fall within the scope of arbitration; the case is stayed pending arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate | Skrynnikov did not dispute his signature; but argues the policy may not clearly cover all claims. | The Employment Application, Offer Letter, and Dispute Resolution Policy collectively form a valid DC-law arbitration agreement. | There is a valid agreement to arbitrate. |
| Whether FCA retaliation claims fall within the arbitration agreement | Arbitration clause does not explicitly reference the FCA. | Policy broadly covers claims involving legally protected rights related to employment, including whistleblower/retaliation claims. | FCA retaliation claim falls within the arbitration agreement and must be arbitrated. |
| Whether FMLA and DCFMLA claims fall within the arbitration agreement | Claims may not be arbitrable if not expressly covered by the policy. | Policy explicitly covers rights protected by FMLA and DC FMLA; arbitrator may decide timeliness issues as preliminaries. | FMLA and DCFMLA claims are within the arbitration agreement and must be arbitrated. |
| Whether 12(b)(6) defenses must be submitted to arbitration | Dismissal defenses could be decided by the court. | Policy requires arbitration for such defenses and FAA compels arbitration of these issues. | Rule 12(b)(6) defenses are to be referred to arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (liberal policy favoring arbitration; arbitration clause should be interpreted to favor arbitration)
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960) (origin of the arbitrability principle; question of arbitrability for judicial determination unless contract says otherwise)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (clear and unmistakable standard for arbitrability if provided by contract)
- Wright v. Universal Maritime Serv. Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (1998) (distinguishes collective-bargaining from individual waivers; different standards apply)
- Carson v. Giant Food, Inc., 175 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 1999) (collective bargaining context requires clear and unmistakable intent; not controlling for individual waivers)
- Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) (statutory framework for arbitration; procedural questions may be decided by arbitrator)
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (2002) (prescribes that certain procedural questions are for arbitrators)