OPINION AND ORDER
GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendants' Defendants' motion to dismiss or stay proceedings and to compel arbitration (ECF No. 5), Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 8), and Defendants' reply memorandum (ECF No. 15). For the reasons that follow, the Court finds the motion well taken.
The parties generally agree on the core facts relevant to the issue before the Court today. Sometime prior to February 12, 2013, Plaintiff, Jaison McLean, submitted his resume for a management position with Defendant Byrider Sales of Indiana S, LLC, which does business as J.D. Byrider ("Byrider"). Mike Heilmann, a Byrider manager, sent Plaintiff an employment application, which Plaintiff completed and returned. Plaintiff subsequently interviewed with Defendant Nick Marcelli, another Byrider manager. After learning that Plaintiff would need to miss work on one Friday each month for the next several years in order to fulfill his Army National Guard obligations, Byrider did not hire Plaintiff. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on May 14, 2013, and Defendants removed the action to this Court on May 31, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) Via motion, Defendants now seek to dismiss or stay these proceedings and to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 5.) The parties have completed briefing on the motion, which is ripe for disposition.
A. Standard Involved
Defendants move this Court to dismiss or stay this litigation and to compel arbitration. The Sixth Circuit has explained the inquiry related to such a motion:
When considering a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration under the [Federal Arbitration] Act, a court has four tasks: first, it must determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; second, it must determine the scope of that agreement; third, if federal statutory claims are asserted, it must consider whether Congress intended those claims to be nonarbitrable; and fourth, if the court concludes that some, but not all, of the claims in the action are subject to arbitration, it must determine whether to stay the remainder of the proceedings pending arbitration.
Stout v. J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d 709, 714 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Compuserve, Inc. v. Vigny Int'l Finance, Ltd., 760 F.Supp. 1273, 1278 (S.D. Ohio 1990)).
Defendants argue that this Court must dismiss or at least stay the instant action while the parties' dispute proceeds to mandated arbitration. To support this asserted mandate, Defendants direct this Court to the employment application that Plaintiff completed. That application includes the following provision:
I agree that I will settle any and all claims, disputes, or controversies arising out of or relating to my application or candidacy for employment, term of employment, and cessation of employment with the Company, exclusively by final and binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator. By way of example only, such claims include claims under federal, state, and local statutory or common law, such as sexual harassment, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, including the amendments of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, The Americans with Disabilities Act, the law of contract and the law of tort. Complete details of my agreement to submit these claims to arbitration are contained in the Company's Employee Dispute Resolution Plan, which is available for my review upon my request.
(ECF. No. 5-1, at Page ID #40.) Plaintiff electronically signed and dated the application immediately below the section containing this arbitration provision.
A threshold issue implicit in the arbitration question is whether the matter of whether Plaintiff's claims must proceed to arbitration is even properly before this Court. The ...