United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Deavers Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
ALGENON L. MARBLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant NCR
Corporation's (“NCR”) Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint and Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 3).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN
PART Defendant's Motion and compels arbitration.
Regina Hubbell worked as a Customer Engineer II for Defendant
NCR from August 2016 to April 2017. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 1).
Ms. Hubbell was the only woman on her team at NCR. (ECF No.
8-1 at ¶ 3). She alleges that while employed at NCR, she
was denied training to perform her job duties, while male
employees received adequate training. (Id. at ¶
8). She further alleges that she was disciplined and
ultimately terminated for allegedly not meeting work
performance requirements, while male employees who failed to
meet the requirements were not terminated. (Id.).
Finally, Ms. Hubbell alleges that as a result of reporting
the discrimination she was facing to her employer, she was
retaliated against. (Id. at ¶ 17).
to beginning her employment with NCR, Ms. Hubbell was
required to complete numerous online documents. (ECF No. 8-1
at ¶ 2). Among the online documents Ms. Hubbell signed
is a “Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate All Employment
Related Clams” (“Arbitration Agreement”)
(ECF No. 8-2). The Arbitration Agreement reads in relevant
[I]n the unlikely event an employment related dispute arises
which cannot be resolved informally, and given our mutual
desire to establish a speedy, impartial and cost effective
way to solve disputes, we mutually agree that, instead of
going to court or a jury, we will submit the unresolved
matter to final and binding arbitration.
This agreement to arbitrate includes every possible claim . .
. arising out of or relating in any way to my employment.
This includes but is not limited to all claims for any form
of illegal discrimination under state or federal law,
improper or unfair treatment or dismissal, and all tort
claims. I understand that while I still have the right to
file a discrimination charge with a state or federal agency,
I will submit the final resolution of any discrimination
claim to an arbitrator instead of a court or jury.
Id. The Arbitration Agreement further states that
“[a]ny issue or dispute concerning the interpretation
or enforceability of this Agreement shall be resolved by the
Hubbell filed a discrimination claim with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and received a Notice of
Right to Sue on June 22, 2017. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 5,
6). On September 13, 2017, she filed the instant action. (ECF
No. 1). NCR filed its Motion to Dismiss and Compel
Arbitration on November 10, 2017. (ECF No. 3). The Motion is
fully briefed and ripe for decision.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), arbitration
contracts “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. If a party who signed an arbitration contract fails
or refuses to arbitrate, the aggrieved party may petition the
court for an order directing the parties to proceed in
arbitration in accordance with the terms of an arbitration
agreement. 9 U.S.C. § 4. The Court must then
“determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the
dispute at issue.” Ackison Surveying, LLC v. Focus
Fiber Sols., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02044, 2016 WL 4208145, at
*1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 10, 2016) (citing Stout v. J.D.
Byrider, 228 F.3d 09, 714 (6th Cir. 2000)). Any doubts
concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved
in favor of arbitration. Id. at *1. Moses H.
Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S.
1, 24-25 (1983). In evaluating motions to compel arbitration,
“courts treat the facts as they would in ruling on a
summary judgment motion, construing all facts and reasonable
inferences that can be drawn therefrom in light most
favorable to the non-moving party.” Jones v. U-Haul
Co. of Massachusetts & Ohio Inc., 16
F.Supp.3d 922, 930 (S.D. Ohio 2014). The court has four
[F]irst, 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