William Jones v. Waffle House, Inc.
866 F.3d 1257
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- William Jones applied for a Waffle House job in Florida in Dec. 2014, was denied, and later sued Waffle House under the FCRA seeking class relief in Oct. 2015.
- While that Florida lawsuit was pending, Jones obtained employment at a Kansas City Waffle House in Feb. 2016 and signed Waffle House’s standard arbitration agreement as part of onboarding.
- The arbitration agreement covered "all claims…past, present, or future, arising out of any aspect of or pertaining in any way to [his] employment" and contained a delegation clause assigning arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.
- Waffle House learned of Jones’s new employment and signed agreement in March 2016 and moved to compel arbitration; the district court denied the motion and Waffle House appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and focused on (1) whether Jones directly challenged the delegation clause, (2) whether the delegation clause was valid under Georgia law (procedural and substantive unconscionability), and (3) whether gateway arbitrability issues must be decided by the arbitrator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of delegation provision (delegation clause enforceable) | Jones argued the agreement (including delegation clause) was unconscionable and/or an unauthorized ex parte communication, so courts should decide arbitrability. | Waffle House argued the delegation clause is clear, enforceable, and governs arbitrability questions. | Delegation provision valid and enforceable under Georgia law; Jones failed to show procedural or substantive unconscionability. |
| Who decides gateway arbitrability (court v. arbitrator) | Jones urged the court to resolve gateway issues (including a purported “wholly groundless” exception). | Waffle House argued parties clearly and unmistakably delegated arbitrability to the arbitrator. | Court held the delegation language is clear and unmistakable; gateway issues go to the arbitrator; rejected the “wholly groundless” exception. |
| Effect on class-action management (Rule 23 concerns) | Jones contended compelling arbitration would interfere with the district court’s managerial authority over the class and cited unilateral communications concerns. | Waffle House said no targeted solicitation occurred; Jones voluntarily applied for the Kansas City job and did not inform counsel. | No evidence of improper solicitation or interference with class management; court rejected Jones’s Rule 23-based objection. |
| Alleged ex parte communication / ethical violation | Jones claimed pre-signed agreements by Waffle House’s in-house counsel amounted to an improper ex parte communication with a represented party under Fla. Bar rules. | Waffle House argued local managers gave the form; corporate counsel lacked knowledge Jones was represented on that matter; rule only prohibits communications about the representation when counsel knows the person is represented. | Court found no improper ex parte communication: no evidence Waller knew Jones was represented in the Florida FCRA matter and the agreement did not address the pending suit. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (FAA favors enforcement of arbitration agreements)
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (doubts about scope of arbitrable issues resolved in favor of arbitration)
- Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (parties may delegate gateway arbitrability questions to arbitrator)
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (who decides arbitrability depends on parties’ agreement)
- Parnell v. CashCall, Inc., 804 F.3d 1142 (11th Cir. 2015) (challenge to delegation clause must target that clause directly)
- Parm v. Nat’l Bank of Cal., N.A., 835 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2016) (courts review delegation clause validity before addressing broader enforceability)
- Jenkins v. First Am. Cash Advance of Ga., LLC, 400 F.3d 868 (11th Cir. 2005) (standards for reviewing arbitration clauses under Georgia law)
- Martinez v. Carnival Corp., 744 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2014) (examples of delegation language evincing clear intent)
- In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 674 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2012) (arbitration of gateway issues upheld when clause clearly delegates)
- Belnap v. Iasis Healthcare, 844 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2017) (rejecting the "wholly groundless" exception and compelling arbitrability determinations by arbitrator)