Wright v. Macy's Retail Holding, Inc., 1:21-cv-03339

Plaintiff (pro se) worked for Macy’s as a sales associate (hired Nov 2017, began Dec 2017) and was terminated June 30, 2020; she alleges race and age discrimination, hostile work environment, and inadequate responses to three assaults while employed.
At hire plaintiff signed onboarding materials including the Solutions InSTORE (SIS) Program, whose final step requires binding arbitration for most employment disputes; employees had a 30‑day opt‑out right.
Plaintiff did not opt out of the SIS arbitration provision and later sued in federal court on Aug 16, 2021.
Macy’s moved to compel arbitration; the Magistrate Judge recommended granting that motion, denying dismissal, and staying/administratively closing the case pending arbitration.
Plaintiff filed objections reiterating workplace complaints and arguing Macy’s breached its obligations, waived arbitration, and that the SIS Program is ineffective.
The District Court adopted the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation: it compelled arbitration, declined to dismiss, and stayed and administratively closed the action pending arbitration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists	Plaintiff: employer did not truly employ her (start deferred), so agreement invalid	Macy’s: plaintiff signed SIS materials, received notice, had opt‑out, and worked for the company for years	Court: Valid agreement existed; one‑month deferred start did not vitiate the employment contract
Whether Macy’s waived the right to arbitrate	Plaintiff: Macy’s handled assault complaints and thus waived arbitration	Macy’s: internal investigations were pre‑litigation; Macy’s promptly moved to compel arbitration in federal court	Court: No waiver—Macy’s did not act inconsistently with arbitration right nor substantially participate in litigation
Whether the arbitration clause is unconscionable/ineffective	Plaintiff: SIS Program is a "waste of time" based on prior experience	Macy’s: SIS contains employee‑friendly cost protections, opt‑out period, onboarding disclosure	Court: Not unconscionable—procedurally and substantively enforceable; plaintiff’s anecdote did not tie ineffectiveness to contract terms
Whether plaintiff’s claims fall within the arbitration scope	Plaintiff: (implicitly) some disputes should proceed in court	Macy’s: SIS covers all employment‑related disputes including termination and statutory claims	Court: Claims fall squarely within the SIS arbitration clause; arbitration compelled

Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1988) (objections to magistrate must specifically identify challenged findings)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se filings are liberally construed)
Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 654 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2011) (two‑part waiver test for arbitration rights)
In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 754 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2014) (litigation conduct may waive arbitration when party substantially participates)
Kaspers v. Comcast Corp., [citation="631 F. App'x 779"] (11th Cir. 2015) (resistance to arbitration alone does not invalidate clause; standards for unconscionability)
Dale v. Comcast Corp., 498 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2007) (factors for substantive unconscionability)
Morewitz v. West of England Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n, 62 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 1995) (waiver by substantial participation in litigation)
Himes v. Commissioner of Social Security, [citation="585 F. App'x 758"] (11th Cir. 2014) (district court may consider pro se arguments raised first in objections)
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Prowant, 209 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2016) (applies two‑part waiver test)