Moise v. Family Dollar Stores of N.Y., Inc.

JOCELYN MOISE, Plaintiff, v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF NEW YORK, INC.and FAMILY DOLLAR SERVICES, INC., Defendants.

No. 16-CV-6314 (RA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

June 1, 2017

OPINION & ORDER

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Jocelyn Moise brings this action against his former employer, Defendants Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc. and Family Dollar Services, Inc. (collectively, "Family Dollar"), under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Family Dollar moves to compel arbitration and to stay these proceedings. For the reasons set forth below, Family Dollar's motion is granted, and this action is stayed.

BACKGROUND

From approximately July 2013 through June 2016, Moise worked as a "store supervisor/shelf-stocker" at a Family Dollar store in the Bronx. See Compl. ¶¶ 7, 22-23 (Dkt. 3). Moise alleges that he worked an average of ninety hours per week without receiving overtime compensation. See id. ¶¶ 30, 32. On August 9, 2016, Moise filed a complaint in this action, claiming that Defendants violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL. See id. ¶¶ 34-39.

On September 26, 2016, Family Dollar moved to compel arbitration. See Mot. to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 12). Family Dollar claims that it provides its employees an online training program known as Family Dollar University ("FDU"), which includes a course titled "Open Door & Arbitration at Family Dollar." See Decl. of Matthew Broel in Supp. of Mot. to Compel Arbitration ¶¶ 4, 8, Ex. A (Dkt. 16). This online training course presents several slides and, ultimately, an arbitration agreement titled "Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims" (the "Agreement"). See id. ¶¶ 9-11, Exs. A, B.

The Agreement provides: "All disputes covered by this Agreement between me and [Family Dollar] shall be decided by an arbitrator through arbitration and not by way of court or jury trial." Broel Decl. Ex. B at 1(boldface in original). Under a section titled "DISPUTES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT," the Agreement states: "[Family Dollar] and I mutually consent and agree to the resolution by arbitration of all claims or controversies, past, present, or future . . . including without limitation, claims arising out of or related to my . . . assignment/employment." Id. (boldface in original). "Further," the agreement continues, "covered Disputes include any claim or controversy regarding the Agreement or any portion of the Agreement or its interpretation, enforceability, applicability, unconscionability, arbitrability or formation, or whether the Agreement or any portion of the Agreement is void or voidable." Id. The agreement then lists a number of claims that qualify as covered disputes, including claims under "all employment related laws, including, but not limited to . . . the Fair Labor Standards Act . . . and any such related or similar state or local laws." Id.¹

A signature line appears at the end of the Agreement. See id. Above the signature line, the Agreement reads:

BY CLICKING THE "I ACCEPT" BUTTON OR SIGNING BELOW, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE CAREFULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS AGREEMENT AND AGREE TO ITS TERMS. I AGREE THAT THROUGH THIS AGREEMENT, THE COMPANY AND I ARE GIVING UP OUR RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL AND THAT PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT; WE ARE AGREEING TO ARBITRATE DISPUTES COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT.

Id. at 3 (capitalization and boldface in original). If the employee has both downloaded and viewed the Agreement, he may then click a checkbox labeled "I ACCEPT" in the online training program. See Broel Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. A. Below this checkbox, the following text appears:

AGREEMENT

By clicking "I Accept", I acknowledge that I have carefully read and understand this agreement and agree to its terms. I agree that through this agreement, the company and I are giving up our rights to a jury trial and that pursuant to the terms of this agreement, we are agreeing to arbitrate disputes covered by this agreement. I further understand and agree to the use of electronic method of signature to demonstrate my acceptance and agreement to the terms of the agreement.

Broel Decl. Ex. A (boldface in original). Below this text is another "I ACCEPT" checkbox. See id.

Family Dollar's system automatically records the date and time on which an employee completes the online training portal. See Broel Decl. ¶ 17. Family Dollar's records indicate that Moise received, reviewed, and acknowledged the Agreement on September 28, 2013. See id. ¶ 19, Ex. C. In addition, a record of Moise's "Learning History" lists the status of the "Open Door and Arbitration at Family Dollar" course as "COMPLETE," and includes a comment that reads, "Completion noted in FDU on October 11, 2013." Id. ¶ 20, Ex. D.

On October 10, 2016, Moise filed an opposition to Family Dollar's motion to compelarbitration, accompanied by a personal declaration. See Pl.'s Opp'n Mem. (Dkt. 18); Moise Decl. (Dkt. 17). In his declaration, Moise states that he does not "recall receiving or reviewing the Open Door Guidelines and/or Arbitration Agreement on September 28, 2013 or at any time thereafter prior to my termination." Moise Decl. ¶ 35. Moise also states that, even if he did access the agreement, he believes he "had no choice but to accept the terms without a full and complete understanding of the implications of the agreement because it was a computer program that required [him] to click on the screen to continue to access the next screen and that [he] had no other choice but to agree to the terms if [he] wished to continue employment with defendants." Id. ¶ 37. On October 17, 2017, Family Dollar filed a reply. See Defs.' Reply Mem. (Dkt. 19).

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that an arbitration agreement "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. Enacted to "revers[e] centuries of judicial hostility to arbitration agreements," Bird v. Shearson Lehman/Am. Express, Inc., 926 F.2d 116, 119 (2d Cir. 1991) (citation omitted), the FAA "embodies the national policy favoring arbitration and places arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts," Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 443 (2006). "This policy is founded on a desire to preserve the parties' ability to agree to arbitrate, rather than litigate, disputes." Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 229 (2d Cir. 2016) (alteration omitted) (quoting Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp., 697 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2012)). "But the FAA 'does not require parties to arbitrate when they have not agreed to do so.'" Id. (quoting Schnabel, 697 F.3d at 118); accord AT & T Techs. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648 (1986) ("[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit." (citationomitted)).

Under the FAA, a party to an arbitration agreement may petition a district court for "an order directing that . . . arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement." 9 U.S.C. § 4. "In resolving a claim that an action must be arbitrated pursuant to an arbitration agreement, [a district court] must determine: (1) whether the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate; (2) if so, the scope of that agreement; (3) if federal statutory claims are asserted, whether Congress intended those claims to be nonarbitrable; and (4) if some, but not all, claims are subject to arbitration, whether to stay the balance of the proceedings pending arbitration." Begonja v. Vornado Realty Tr., 159 F. Supp. 3d 402, 408-09 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing Guyden v. Aetna, Inc., 544 F.3d 376, 382 (2d Cir. 2008)). "Whether or not the parties have agreed to arbitrate is a question of state contract law." Schnabel, 697 F.3d at 119.²

"In deciding motions to compel, courts apply a 'standard similar to that applicable for a motion for summary judgment.'" Nicosia, 834 F.3d at 229 (quoting Bensadoun v. Jobe-Riat, 316 F.3d 171, 175 (2d Cir. 2003)). A court must therefore "consider all relevant, admissible evidence submitted by the parties" and "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party." Id. (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

A. Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

In opposing Family Dollar's motion, Moise first argues that there is no arbitration agreement for the Court to enforce. Specifically, Moise argues that he never entered into an arbitration agreement because: (1) he does not recall receiving or reviewing the Agreement, (2) hedid not read or fully understand the any arbitration agreement he may have signed, and (3) to the extent that he signed any arbitration agreement, he did so under "economic duress or coercion." See Pl.'s Opp'n Mem. at 5-9. These arguments fail.

First, Moise's claim that he does not "recall" receiving the Agreement does not create a genuine dispute as to whether he signed it. It is well-established that a "mere assertion that one does not recall signing a document does not, by itself, create an issue of fact as to whether a signature on a document is valid—especially in the absence of any evidence the document was fabricated." Gonder v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 144 F. Supp. 3d 522, 528 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (emphasis in original); see also, e.g., Vardanyan v. Close-Up Int'l, Inc., 315 F. App'x 315, 317-18 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order) (holding that a plaintiff's "statement that he does not remember whether he signed the document does not conflict with the testimony and evidence that defendants have submitted about the terms of that agreement"). Moise does not claim that he did not sign the Agreement, instead asserting that he "do[es] not recall receiving or reviewing" it. Moise Decl. ¶ 35. Family Dollar, however, has submitted a record of the date and time on which Moise "received, reviewed, and acknowledged" the Agreement through its...