United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 6). The Motion is fully briefed
and ready for disposition.
case arises from Plaintiff's employment and termination
of his employment on March 2, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the
Plaintiff filed the instant case in the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, in the State of Missouri. (Cause No:
19SL-CC01187). Plaintiff alleges claims under the Missouri
Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) for discrimination,
retaliation and hostile work environment due to age and
alleged disability. On May 8, 2019, the Defendant removed the
case to this Court. (ECF No. 1). Defendant now seeks to
compel Plaintiff's claims to arbitration to the
parties' Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §1, et seq.
(“FAA”). Defendant asserts that at all times
during Plaintiff's employment with Defendant the Parties
were subject to a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate
(“MAA”). (ECF No. 7, at 2). The MAA states:
You and Oracle understand that any existing or future dispute
or claim arising out of or related to your Oracle employment
or the termination of that employment, will be resolved by
final and binding arbitration, and that no other forum for
dispute resolution will be available to either party, except
as to those claims identified below. The decision of the
arbitrator shall be final and binding on both you and Oracle
and it shall be enforceable by any court having proper
The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to
the Federal Arbitration Act, and in accordance with the
National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes of
the American Arbitration Association or the Employment
Arbitration Rules and Procedures adopted by Judicial
Arbitration & Mediation Services (“JAMS”).
The arbitrator will have all the powers a judge would have in
dealing with any question or dispute that may arise before,
during and after the arbitration.
not covered by the Arbitration Agreement are:
1. Claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or
any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or
harassment, including assault and battery, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or
negligent hiring, supervision, or retention,
2. Claims for benefits under the workers' compensation,
unemployment insurance and state disability insurance laws,
3. Claims by you or by Oracle for temporary restraining
orders or preliminary injunctions (“temporary equitable
relief”) in cases in which such temporary equitable
relief would be otherwise authorized by law. In such cases
where temporary equitable relief is sought, the trial on the
merits of the action will occur in front of, and will be
decided by the arbitrator, who will have the same ability to
order legal equitable remedies as could a court of general
asserts that the MAA is valid and enforceable against the
Plaintiff. (ECF No. 7, at 5). Plaintiff disagrees stating
that the Court should find that the MAA lacks consideration.
(ECF No. 11, 3-4). Plaintiff further requests that the Court
apply the doctrine of unclean hands to determine that the MAA
is unenforceable. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has
misunderstood the law regarding the arbitrability of the MAA
because under the AAA and JAMS Rules, the Arbitrator not the
court may rule on the validity and enforceability of the
Arbitration Agreement. (ECF No. 14). Defendant further argues
that this Court should stay judicial proceedings pending
arbitration. (ECF No. 7, at 10).
2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§
1B16, states that an agreement to arbitrate “shall be
valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds
as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. This provision reflects
the strong federal policy favoring arbitration. AT &
T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011).
Because “arbitration is a matter of contract,
….courts must rigorously enforce arbitration
agreements according to their terms, ” American
Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228, 233
(2013) (internal quotations and citation omitted), including
requirements to pursue claims through individual arbitration.
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. ...