Wedemeyer v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.
324 Ga. App. 47
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Gulfstream hired Wedemeyer as a production test pilot in 2007; he agreed to Gulfstream’s Dispute Resolution Policy (DRP) requiring a four-level process culminating in binding arbitration for employment-related claims, including intentional torts and defamation.
- The DRP applied to all employees who were employed while the policy (or any version) was in effect and allowed the company to bypass steps for disputes with former employees.
- On Feb. 14, 2011, after a production test flight incident in Wisconsin that damaged the plane, Gulfstream grounded and later terminated Wedemeyer.
- Wedemeyer sued Gulfstream for defamation, tortious interference with business expectancy, and lost income, alleging Gulfstream disseminated false statements after his termination that cost him jobs.
- Gulfstream moved to compel arbitration under the DRP; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Wedemeyer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wedemeyer was bound by the DRP when his claims arose | Wedemeyer argued he was not subject to the DRP for the claims at issue | Gulfstream argued the DRP applied to employees who were employed while the policy was in effect, including former employees | Held: DRP unambiguously covered employees employed while the policy was in effect; it applies to former employees and disputes arising after termination | |
| Whether Wedemeyer’s claims are "covered claims" arising from the employment relationship | Wedemeyer argued his defamation and interference claims were not employment-related and thus not arbitrable | Gulfstream argued the DRP expressly covers torts, intentional torts, defamation, and claims arising from involuntary termination; only claims having no relationship to employment are excluded | Held: Court found at least a slight causal connection between the claims and employment; claims are covered and arbitrable | |
| Whether FAA or estoppel arguments preclude arbitration | Wedemeyer contended FAA didn’t apply to these employment claims and asserted estoppel based on prior Gulfstream communications | Wedemeyer also relied on Second Circuit authorities distinguishing post-termination torts | Gulfstream argued the FAA applies and it did not admit claims were uncovered; prior letter did not concede coverage; court relied on precedent that FAA applies and employer communications are foreseeable post-termination | Held: FAA applies; estoppel argument rejected; arbitration compelled (federal and state precedent support arbitrability of these employment-related post-termination statements) |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (judicial gatekeeping on arbitrability absent clear delegation)
- Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees, 489 U.S. 468 (arbitration is a matter of consent; enforceable arbitration agreements upheld)
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (FAA applies to most employment contracts)
- Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir.) (upholding the same DRP as an enforceable arbitration agreement)
- Fleck v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc., 891 F.2d 1047 (2d Cir.) (post-termination statements can be arbitrable if foreseeably related to employment)
- Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. New Freedom Mtg. Corp., 285 Ga. App. 22 (under Georgia law, "arising out of" requires only a slight causal connection)