Suminda Jayasundera v. Aimee Garcia, 684 F. App'x 254

Jayasundera sued Macy’s in 2014 alleging workplace discrimination; Macy’s moved to compel arbitration and the district court dismissed the case after finding a valid arbitration agreement. He did not appeal that ruling.
After arbitration and an unsuccessful challenge to the arbitrator’s decision, Jayasundera filed a second federal suit in 2016 alleging continued discrimination and constructive discharge.
Macy’s again moved to compel arbitration. The district court held Jayasundera was collaterally estopped from relitigating the existence of the arbitration agreement and compelled arbitration, dismissing the complaint.
Jayasundera appealed, arguing (1) he never agreed to arbitrate because Macy’s submitted fraudulent evidence in the first case, and (2) he timely opted out of the arbitration agreement in 2015.
The Third Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding collateral estoppel applied and the alleged late opt-out was untimely under the agreement’s 30-day post-hire opt-out period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jayasundera can relitigate the existence/validity of the arbitration agreement	Jayasundera: he never agreed to arbitrate; earlier determination was wrong/tainted	Macy’s: issue was already decided; collateral estoppel bars relitigation	Court: Collateral estoppel applied; Jayasundera barred from relitigating validity
Whether alleged fabrication of evidence in prior case defeats collateral estoppel	Jayasundera: Macy’s submitted fabricated/misleading evidence, so prior judgment should not bind him	Macy’s: no competent proof of fabrication; objection should have been raised earlier	Court: No evidence of fabrication presented now and plaintiff failed to raise it earlier; collateral estoppel stands
Whether Jayasundera timely opted out of arbitration	Jayasundera: he opted out in 2015, after first case dismissal	Macy’s: opt-out period was 30 days from hire; 2015 attempt was untimely	Court: Opt-out period expired in 2009; late opt-out irrelevant and ineffective
Scope of claims (arbitrability)	(Not contested on appeal)	Macy’s: claims fall within arbitration agreement	Court: District court’s scope ruling not challenged on appeal; affirmed

Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Hyundai Merch. Marine Co., 63 F.3d 1227 (3d Cir.) (elements of collateral estoppel)
Cowgill v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 832 F.2d 798 (3d Cir.) (newly discovered evidence may defeat collateral estoppel in narrow circumstances)
Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir.) (issue preclusion bars entire issue, not just arguments presented)
Spinetti v. Serv. Corp. Int’l, 324 F.3d 212 (3d Cir.) (jurisdictional rule on appeals from orders compelling arbitration)
Kaneff v. Del. Title Loans, Inc., 587 F.3d 616 (3d Cir.) (de novo review of district court’s decision to compel arbitration)