Plaintiffs Must Arbitrate Individually, Even If It Means No “Pattern-Or-Practice” Claim the cool kids are talking about class arbitration lately. . .  There are the two cases pending before SCOTUS, and now the Second Circuit confirms its place in the “in crowd” with a decision forcing a class of employees into arbitration in Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 1149751 (2d Cir. Mar. 21, 2013).

In Parisi, three female former employees alleged gender discrimination by Goldman, Sachs and sought to proceed as a class action in court.  The plaintiffs acknowledged having an arbitration agreement covering matters relating to their employment.  However, they opposed Goldman’s motion to compel arbitration by arguing their arbitration agreement was invalid because it waived their statutory right under Title VII to pursue a “pattern-or-practice” claim of discrimination.  (Interestingly, this whole case turns on the availability of class arbitration, but the quoted arbitration agreement does not explicitly preclude class arbitration.  The plaintiffs apparently never argued that their arbitration agreement can be interpreted as authorizing class arbitrations, so the assumption underlying this opinion is that class arbitration is unavailable to these plaintiffs.)

The plaintiffs won at the district court, with that court concluding that because plaintiffs could not proceed as a class in arbitration, they could not pursue a Title VII pattern-or-practice claim, and therefore the arbitration agreement impermissibly waived the plaintiffs’ statutory rights.  The Second Circuit disagreed and reversed.  In short, the appellate court found there is ”no substantive statutory right to pursue a pattern-or-practice claim.”  Citing earlier decisions of both the Second and Fifth Circuits, the court summarized that “‘pattern-or-practice’ simply refers to a method of proof and does not constitute a ‘freestanding cause of action.’”  Therefore, plaintiffs could be compelled to arbitrate — even on an individual basis — without waiving any of their substantive statutory rights.

In the course of its decision, the court identified only two circumstances “in which motions to compel arbitration must be denied because arbitration would prevent plaintiffs from vindicating their statutory rights.” First, as in AmEx, that can happen when the costs of arbitration effectively preclude the plaintiffs from prosecuting their statutory rights.  And second, that can happen when the arbitration agreement “interfere[s] with the recovery of statutorily authorized damages.”  In other words, if a statute authorizes treble or punitive damages, the arbitration clause cannot bar those types of damages.

This is another case that appears to have been caught in Stolt-Nielsen‘s cross-hairs.  The plaintiffs here devised their strategy, and filed their complaint, before Stolt-Nielsen was issued and significantly altered the framework for arguing class arbitration issues.  In any case, this decision clarifies that alleging a pattern-or-practice of discrimination will not allow a plaintiff to keep its claims in court instead of arbitration, and also clarifies the current state of the law on when arbitration can be avoided because it does not adequately protect statutory rights.  Of course, the state of the law may shift again in the coming months when the Supreme Court decides AmEx.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Stinson Leonard Street - Arbitration Nation | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.