Friedman v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-08901
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 25
In Friedman v. Sunrise, Judge Stein denied arbitration because Friedman’s dispute arose before her employment began.
Jeanne V. Friedman may continue litigating her claims against Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. in federal court rather than being required to arbitrate them; Sunrise must answer the complaint within 14 days.
What happened
In Jeanne V. Friedman v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc., Friedman alleged that Sunrise withdrew a conditional job offer after she refused to authorize a credit check, violating New York City law. Sunrise asked the court to require arbitration under an agreement Friedman had signed.
The court found that the arbitration agreement was valid but covered only disputes arising during or after Friedman’s employment. Because Friedman never completed the offer’s conditions, performed work, or received pay, the court concluded that she was never employed by Sunrise. Her claims therefore fell outside the agreement’s scope.
United States Magistrate Judge Gary Stein denied Sunrise’s motion to compel arbitration. Friedman may continue litigating her claims in court, and Sunrise must file an answer within 14 days.
The detailed version
- Friedman v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08901
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Jeanne V. Friedman applied for a wellness nurse position at a Sunrise facility in Manhattan. Sunrise sent her a conditional offer that included a projected start date, pay information, and a requirement that she complete drug, background, and reference checks. The offer also required her to sign Sunrise’s Dispute Resolution Agreement.
The agreement created a three-step dispute process: direct communication, nonbinding mediation, and then binding arbitration. It covered legal disputes arising “during or after” Friedman’s employment and related to her employment or its termination. Friedman signed the offer and agreement on March 14, 2023, but then objected to being asked to authorize a credit check. Her start date was postponed, and Sunrise later withdrew the offer. Friedman sued, alleging that Sunrise retaliated against her for refusing to authorize the credit check in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.
Motion and parties’ positions
Sunrise moved to compel arbitration and stay the case. It argued that Friedman’s claims arose during the hiring or onboarding process and therefore related to her employment. Friedman agreed that the Dispute Resolution Agreement was valid and enforceable, but argued that it did not cover her claims because her employment never began.
Court’s analysis
Judge Stein first held that a valid arbitration agreement existed. The dispute was whether Friedman’s claims fell within its scope. Applying Delaware contract law under the agreement’s governing-law provision, the court interpreted “during or after your employment” according to the ordinary meaning of the words.
The court held that “your employment” referred to the period when Friedman was actually employed, not Sunrise’s process of hiring or onboarding her. The agreement did not mention employment applications, hiring, or onboarding. The court stated that it could not rewrite the agreement to add those subjects.
The court then found that Friedman was never employed by Sunrise. The offer was expressly conditional, the required checks were not completed or waived, Friedman never performed work, and she was never paid. The offer described March 27, 2023 as a projected start date, which never occurred. Sunrise’s later email was understood as withdrawing the offer, not terminating an existing employment relationship.
Because Friedman was never employed, her dispute did not arise during or after her employment. The court also declined to apply a presumption favoring arbitration because the agreement’s scope was unambiguous.
Disposition
The court denied Sunrise’s motion to compel arbitration. Friedman may proceed with the merits of her claims in court. Sunrise must file an answer to the complaint within 14 days. The order did not decide whether Friedman will ultimately prevail on her claims.
Read the full 25-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.