Mainville v. College Town Pizza, Inc.

Background

Nick Mainville, a Wisconsin resident and employee of Route 41, a Domino’s pizza store in Appleton, Wisconsin, sued several companies and individuals involved in operating Domino’s stores. He alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin wage-and-hour laws by inadequately reimbursing delivery drivers for job-related expenses and, as a result, failing to pay minimum wages.

Mainville alleged that delivery drivers used their personal vehicles and paid expenses such as automobile costs, gasoline, maintenance, insurance, licensing, registration, cell phone, and GPS costs. He claimed that the defendants' per-mile reimbursement was below the Internal Revenue Service business mileage rate and was not connected to the drivers' actual expenses. His complaint asserted four claims: violations of the FLSA, violations of Wisconsin's minimum-wage law, violations of Wisconsin's wage-payment law, and unjust enrichment.

Arbitration Agreement

Mainville electronically signed an arbitration agreement on November 9, 2017, in connection with his employment at Route 41. The agreement required the company and the team member to submit covered disputes exclusively to binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Covered claims included disputes about wages, compensation, employment expenses, the FLSA, and state wage-payment laws. The agreement also waived class and collective arbitration and allowed the team member to opt out within 30 days of signing by sending a signed email or letter to Domino’s.

Mainville argued that the agreement was unconscionable, meaning so unfair that it should not be enforced. He relied on the parties' unequal bargaining power, the agreement's alleged take-it-or-leave-it nature, and his contention that the agreement primarily benefited the defendants.

Court's Analysis

The court concluded that the agreement was valid and enforceable under either Minnesota or Wisconsin law. It held that unequal bargaining power alone was not enough to invalidate the agreement. The court also found that the opt-out provision undermined Mainville's argument that the agreement was an unenforceable take-it-or-leave-it contract. Finally, the court rejected his argument that the agreement was invalid because it limited class or collective proceedings, discovery, and confidentiality, noting that the agreement had to be enforced according to its terms.

The court held that the agreement covered all of Mainville's claims because they concerned wages, expense reimbursement, FLSA violations, and unjust enrichment arising from his employment. The court also rejected Mainville's argument that FLSA claims could not be required to proceed in confidential individual arbitration.

The court found that the defendants did not waive their right to arbitration. They moved to compel arbitration before the parties engaged in extensive discovery, and the motion was timely. The court concluded that the defendants' motions to dismiss and to transfer or change venue did not affect the timeliness of their motion to compel arbitration.

Disposition

The court granted the arbitration defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The order specified that this grant did not include their request for attorneys' fees and costs, which was denied without prejudice. The court dismissed the case without prejudice because all of Mainville's claims were subject to arbitration.

The court denied as moot the dismissal defendants' motion to dismiss, which argued that Mainville had not plausibly alleged that he was employed by those defendants. The court also denied as moot the arbitration defendants' motion to transfer or change venue. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.