460 F.Supp.3d 1
D.D.C.2020Background
- Plaintiff Alyson Slaughter is visually impaired and alleges Amtrak’s redesigned iOS app and mobile website are inaccessible with her iPhone’s Larger Dynamic Type setting, preventing use of train info and ticketing features.
- Amtrak’s mobile app is governed by an End User License Agreement (EULA) and its website by Web Notices & Site Terms of Use (Website Agreement); both contain forum-selection clauses consenting to exclusive jurisdiction in federal courts in the District of Columbia and the Website Agreement has a merger clause.
- Amtrak’s Ticket Terms & Conditions (Ticket Agreement), accepted by Plaintiff when purchasing tickets multiple times, contains a broad arbitration clause, a delegation clause (assigning arbitrability questions to an arbitrator), and a class waiver.
- Plaintiff sued in D.D.C. under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act seeking injunctive and declaratory relief for the app/website accessibility failures; Amtrak moved to compel arbitration and dismiss.
- The court held the dispute arises from Plaintiff’s use of the app/website and is governed by the EULA and Website Agreement (which lack arbitration clauses but specify D.C. federal courts), so Amtrak’s Ticket Agreement does not compel arbitration and the motion to compel arbitration was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Ticket Agreement's delegation clause requires an arbitrator to decide arbitrability | Slaughter: Delegation clause only applies if Ticket Agreement governs; EULA/Website control | Amtrak: Delegation clause is clear and delegates gateway arbitrability questions to arbitrator | No — court decides which agreement governs; delegation clause applies only if Ticket Agreement governs the dispute |
| Whether the Ticket Agreement's arbitration clause covers app/website accessibility claims | Slaughter: Claims arise from use of app/website governed by EULA/Website Agreement, not the Ticket Agreement | Amtrak: The Ticket Agreement is broad and covers all claims "related to" services including discrimination/failure to accommodate | No — arbitration clause cannot be transplanted to separate agreements; EULA/Website forum-selection clauses control |
| Whether the claims "relate to" the Ticket Agreement (i.e., are part of same course of dealing) | Slaughter: Claims concern app/website use and require no inquiry into carriage/ticket terms | Amtrak: Accessibility claims implicate Amtrak as a transportation provider and thus the Ticket Agreement | No — claims derive from distinct user relationships; they do not require reference to ticket terms and are not part of the same integrated transaction |
Key Cases Cited
- Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) (courts must direct parties to arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement exists)
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (ordinary state-law contract principles govern whether parties agreed to arbitrate)
- Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (2010) (court may order arbitration only where parties agreed to arbitrate that particular dispute)
- Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) (delegation clauses are enforceable when parties clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability)
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532 (2019) (a delegation clause is a specialized type of arbitration agreement and governed by contract principles)
- Fit Tech, Inc. v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 374 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (an arbitration clause in one contract does not automatically apply to disputes under a separate contract)
- Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 445 F.3d 762 (4th Cir. 2006) (factors for assessing whether claims "relate to" a contract containing an arbitration clause)