Zeringue v. Monster Energy Company, 2:17-cv-06023

Plaintiff Page Zeringue worked for Monster Energy from 2008–2015 and sued under Title VII for a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation after alleged misconduct by supervisors and eventual termination.
Zeringue signed written employment agreements on February 20, 2008 and September 11, 2014; both contained arbitration provisions covering employment-related disputes and statutory "public policy" claims.
Plaintiff argued the September 2014 arbitration clause did not cover sexual harassment/retaliation claims and should not apply retroactively to conduct before September 2014.
Plaintiff also contended the arbitration clause conflicted with Monster’s harassment policies, that she did not meaningfully consent (oral assurances about a promotion), and that the clause was an unenforceable contract of adhesion.
Defendant moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss (alternatively stay) the Title VII suit; the court evaluated validity, scope, retroactivity, and any statutory bar to arbitration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope/enforceability of arbitration clause	Clause does not expressly include sexual harassment or retaliatory termination	Clause unambiguously covers any dispute "arising out of or relating to" employment, including statutory claims	Court: Arbitration clause valid and covers Title VII claims
Temporal scope/retroactivity	Clause shouldn't reach events before Sept. 11, 2014	Clause has no temporal limit; earlier 2008 agreement also provides for arbitration	Court: No temporal limitation; claims predating Sept. 2014 are arbitrable
Procedural fairness/adhesion & consent	Plaintiff lacked meaningful assent; clause is adhesive and not negotiated	Agreement was signed, conspicuous, mutual, and not hidden; plaintiff had duty to read	Court: Not an unenforceable contract of adhesion; plaintiff consented by signing
Arbitrability under federal law / relief	Implied that Title VII claims shouldn't be sent to arbitration (argued indirectly)	FAA and Supreme Court precedent favor arbitration; no statute renders claims non-arbitrable; move to compel and dismiss	Court: Federal policy favors arbitration; compelled arbitration and dismissed complaint

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (Sup. Ct.) (FAA’s strong federal policy favors enforcement of arbitration agreements)
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (doubts about arbitrability resolved in favor of arbitration)
JP Morgan Chase & Co. v. Conegie ex rel. Lee, 492 F.3d 596 (5th Cir.) (two-step arbitrability inquiry: agreement and scope; then statutory preclusion)
Carey v. 24 Hour Fitness, USA, Inc., 669 F.3d 202 (5th Cir.) (silence on retroactivity can permit retroactive application of arbitration changes)
Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161 (5th Cir.) (dismissal appropriate where all claims are subject to arbitration)
Fedmet Corp. v. M/V BUYALYK, 194 F.3d 674 (5th Cir.) (discussing dismissal vs. stay when compelling arbitration)
Aguillard v. Auction Mgmt. Co., 908 So.2d 1 (La.) (contract-of-adhesion analysis focuses on whether party truly consented)
Coleman v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 6 So.3d 179 (La.) (written arbitration agreement enforceable despite prior oral negotiations)