Smeck v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns Mgmt., Case No. 19-cv-3625-JMY

JOSEPH SMECK, v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.

Case No. 19-cv-3625-JMY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

November 25, 2020

MEMORANDUM

YOUNGE, J.

Currently before this Court is a Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration & Stay Proceedings filed by the Defendants, Comcast Corporation, Comcast Business Communications, LLC, and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC (hereinafter "Comcast"). (Mot. Compel Arb., ECF No. 23.) For the reasons discussed below, this Court will grant the Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration & Stay Proceedings without holding oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, L.R. 7.1(f).

I. BACKGROUND:

A. Procedure:

Plaintiff, Joseph Smeck, brought this employment discrimination action against his former employer, Comcast. In the Complaint, he alleges violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. ("ADEA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. ("ADA"), the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951, et seq. ("PHRA"), the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, Phila. Code § 9-1100, et seq. ("PFPO"), and the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. ("FMLA"). (Complaint § I. Introduction, ECF No. 1.)

Comcast filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration & Stay Proceedings. (Original Mot. Compel Arb., ECF No. 11.) After a review of the original Motion to Compel Arbitration & Stay Proceedings, this Court entered an Order denying the motion without prejudice to file a renewed motion at the conclusion of discovery related to the dispute resolution agreement. (Order, ECF No. 20.) The Order directed the parties to conduct discovery limited to issues raised in the Motion to Compel Arbitration & Stay Proceedings. (Id.)

B. Facts:

Plaintiff alleges that at age 58, he was unlawfully managed out of his employment because of his age, disability, and use of a protected medical leave of absence under the ADA, FMLA, and accompanying state law. (see generally Complaint.) Plaintiff began working for Comcast as an independent contractor in February of 2013 and was hired as a full-time employee on or about January 4, 2014. (Compl. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff left work early on March 28, 2018 because he was not feeling well. (Id. ¶¶ 27 & 28.) The following day, March 29, 2018, Plaintiff underwent a cardiac catheterization and had a stent surgically implanted in his heart. (Id. ¶ 29.) Following his surgery, Plaintiff was diagnosed with coronary artery disease (Id. ¶ 30), and he required a recovery period of approximately seven (7) weeks following the insertion of the stent. (Id. ¶ 32.) During this seven (7) week period, Plaintiff was unable to work. (Id. ¶ 32-33.)

Plaintiff avers that Comcast granted his request for a medical leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act. (Id. 38.) He further alleges that the leave of absence was a "reasonable accommodation" within the meaning of the ADA, PHRA and PFPO. (Id. 36.) Plaintiff returned to work on May 21, 2018 to what he described as a hostile and abusive environment. (Id. ¶ 39-40.) After receiving several negative evaluations (Id. ¶ 45, 53 & 59),Plaintiff was informed on December 5, 2018 that he would be terminated effective December 7, 2018. (Id. ¶ 65.)

In its renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration & Stay Proceedings, Comcast cites to an Offer Letter that Plaintiff signed on December 9, 2014 prior to beginning full-time employment with Comcast. (Mot. Compel Arb., Offer Letter, Ex A., ECF No. 23-2.) The Offer Letter references a dispute resolution program, Comcast Solutions, that the parties agreed to use to resolve employment related disputes. With respect to the Comcast Solutions program, the Offer Letter reads in relevant part:

Comcast has a dispute resolution program for its employees, known as Comcast Solutions, which provides a three-step process (facilitation, mediation and binding arbitration) for resolving a variety of workplace legal issues should there be any that arise between you and the Company during or after your employment. A brochure with information and directions on how to obtain additional information related to the program is being provided to you along with this offer letter. Please review this information carefully, as the program affects the legal rights of both you and the Company (including a waiver of the right to bring a civil action in federal or state court or before a civil judge or jury, as well as a waiver of the right to bring or participate in a class action, collective action or representative action). If you cannot locate the brochure, have any questions or need additional information regarding Comcast Solutions, please call, toll free, 855-838-4180, or email to Comcast_Solutions@cable.comcast.com. By accepting this offer of employment with the Company and signing below, you acknowledge that you understand the terms of the Comcast Solutions program and also acknowledge that both you and the Company agree to participate in and be bound by the terms of the Comcast Solutions Program.

(Offer Letter, p. 2.)

Plaintiff read and signed the Offer Letter. (Joseph Smeck, Disc. Transcr., p. 17, 39-40, Ex 2., ECF No. 23-3.) He also received a copy of the Comcast Solutions Brochure along with the Offer Letter. (Id.) The Brochure encouraged prospective employees to consult additional materials concerning Comcast Solutions program including the Comcast Solutions Program Guide (Mot. Compel Arb., Program Guide, Ex. B., ECF No. 23-2) and the Comcast SolutionsFrequently Asked Questions. (Mot. Compel Arb., Frequently Asked Questions, Ex. C., ECF No. 23-2; Mot. Compel Arb., Comcast Solutions Brochure, Ex. A., ECF No. 23-2.)

The Comcast Solutions Brochure, clearly states:

To participate in the Comcast Solutions program, both you and the company waive the right to a civil action or a jury trial for any covered claims. You also waive the right to bring or participate in a class action or in a collective or representative action on covered legal claims, to the fullest extent permitted by law. All covered legal claims will be handled through the three-step Comcast Solutions process; both you and the company will be bound by the final decision of the arbitrator.

(Comcast Solutions Brochure, p. 8.)

During his tenure with Comcast, Plaintiff repeatedly reaffirmed the agreement between himself and Comcast to resolve employment related disputes using the Comcast Solutions program and to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Comcast Solutions program. (Mot. Compel Arb., Acknowledgment Forms for 2016, 2017, and 2018, Ex. F., ECF No. 23-2.) One of the key features of Comcast Solutions program is that it provides for the resolution of disputes before an arbitrator approved by either the American Arbitration Association or Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS). (Comcast Solutions Brochure, p. 6, 10.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD:¹

Whether a district court considers a motion to compel arbitration under a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard or a summary judgment standard depends on whether the Complaint sets forth the basis for arbitration. "[W]hen it is apparent, based on 'the face of a complaint, and documents relied upon in the complaint,' that certain of a party's claims 'are subject to an enforceable arbitration clause, a motion to compel arbitration should be considered under a Rule12(b)(6) standard . . . .'" Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC, 716 F.3d 764, 776 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Somerset Consulting, LLC, v. United Capital Lenders, LLC, 832 F. Supp. 2d 474, 482 (E.D. Pa. 2011)). On the other hand, "a Rule 12(b)(6) standard isinappropriate when . . . 'the motion to compel arbitration does not have as its predicate a complaint with the requisite clarity' to establish on its face that the parties agreed to arbitrate." Id. at 774. (quoting Somerset, 832 F. Supp. 2d at 482). Under the latter circumstances, we "use the summary judgment standard under Rule 56(a), in which 'the motion [to compel] should be granted where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Maddy v. GE, 629 F. App'x. 437, 440 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Flinktkote Co. v. Aviva PLC, 769 F.3d 215, 219 (3d Cir. 2014)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). An issue is "genuine" if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A factual dispute is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id.

The court applies the summary judgment standard because a motion to compel arbitration is "in effect a summary disposition of the issue of whether or not there had been a meeting of the minds on the agreement to arbitrate." Century Indem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 584 F.3d 513, 528 (3rd Cir. 2009). Under this standard, "the party opposing arbitration is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences that may arise." Kaneff v. Del. Title Loans, Inc., 587 F.3d 616, 620 (3d Cir. 2009). "Only when there is no genuine issue of fact concerning the formation of the agreement should the court decide as a matter of law that the parties did or did not enter into such an agreement." Vilches v. Travelers Cos., 413 F. App'x 487, 491 (3d Cir. 2011).

In this case, the Complaint does not reference any arbitration agreement. Rather, Defendants raise the existence of an arbitration agreement in their Motion to Compel Arbitration & Stay Proceedings to which they attached a copy of the Offer Letter, the Comcast Solutions Brochure, Comcast Solutions Program Guide, and Comcast Solutions Frequently AskedQuestions Pamphlet. Both Defendants and Plaintiff also rely on factual evidence outside of the pleadings in arguing that arbitration is or is not appropriate. Therefore, this Court applies the summary judgment standard to resolve Defendants' Motion.

A. Legal...