Roe v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.

Background

This employment discrimination case was removed from state court to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. moved to compel arbitration, meaning it asked the court to require the dispute to be resolved through arbitration rather than in court.

The parties agreed that the Federal Arbitration Act governs the motion and that California law controls contract formation. Under the federal law, the party seeking arbitration must show that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. If the agreement's formation is disputed, the court must hold a trial on that issue.

Disputed Agreement Formation

The disputed agreement was the Mutual Dispute Resolution Agreement, or MDRA. The opinion states that Roe did not expressly acknowledge receiving the MDRA, did not expressly agree to it, and did not opt out.

The parties disagreed about whether Roe had actual or constructive notice of the MDRA. Thermo Fisher offered evidence that Roe accessed the MDRA on August 19, 2019, by clicking a link in a bulk email from a company computer and assigned email account. Roe said he never reviewed the agreement. He also argued that Thermo Fisher's evidence did not show whether he successfully accessed the link or what he would have seen. Roe pointed to a later reminder email stating that company records showed he had not completed the review steps for the program, including the MDRA.

Thermo Fisher also said that it sent four email notices about the MDRA and the 45-day opt-out period. The court noted that the attached emails lacked time stamps, sender and recipient information, and other details that could definitively establish constructive notice.

Ruling and Case Management

The court did not decide the motion to compel arbitration. Instead, it found that the disagreements about the agreement's formation were material factual disputes requiring a bench trial, meaning a trial decided by the judge rather than a jury.

The court set a half-day bench trial for June 13, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. The court anticipated that each side would call no more than one to three witnesses. The parties were ordered to work together on a discovery plan for the trial issues and to file a joint witness list and brief descriptions of the expected evidence by June 3, 2022. All other discovery was stayed until further order. The court stated that it would resolve Thermo Fisher's motion to compel arbitration after the bench trial.

The opinion also states that Roe had filed the complaint under a pseudonym in state court. If Roe wished to continue using a pseudonym in federal court, the court said he would need to file a motion seeking permission.