Glover v. Verizon Wireless

Background

Wilbert Glover, who represented himself, was a Verizon customer. The opinion states that, each time Glover purchased wireless equipment and services from Verizon, he signed retail installment contracts and sales receipts agreeing that disputes would be governed by Verizon’s Customer Agreement.

The Customer Agreement contained a broad arbitration provision. It stated that Glover and Verizon agreed to resolve disputes only through arbitration or small-claims court, and that they gave up the right to bring covered claims in court or before a jury. The provision covered disputes relating to the agreement, Verizon’s equipment, products, and services, and disputes involving Verizon’s employees or agents.

Glover’s complaint alleged that, in August 2020, a Victra employee refused to accept his payment or provide service at a Victra store, allegedly saying, “We don’t deal with Black people.” He also alleged that Verizon employees refused to help him with malfunctioning devices and made racist comments. According to the complaint, Verizon later turned off his services after he complained about the alleged discrimination. Glover claimed that the defendants violated his civil rights by discriminating against him based on race in providing public services. He sought $10 million in damages.

The Motion to Compel Arbitration

The defendants moved to compel arbitration and pause the lawsuit. The Federal Arbitration Act, the federal law governing many arbitration agreements, requires courts to enforce a valid written arbitration agreement when the dispute falls within its scope.

The parties did not dispute that the arbitration provision was valid. Their dispute concerned whether Glover’s discrimination and retaliation claims were covered. The court concluded that the claims related to Glover’s interactions with Verizon, its employees, and its agent, Victra, when he tried to pay his bill, sought assistance with his devices and wireless service, and complained about the alleged treatment. The court therefore held that the claims fell within the arbitration provision.

Glover argued that he had not agreed to arbitrate disputes involving racial remarks or retaliation. The court rejected that argument because the provision was broad and the factual allegations concerned the customer service he received from Verizon, its employees, and its agent. The court stated that Glover could assert his discrimination and retaliation claims before a neutral arbitrator.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action. It also ordered that the case be stayed pending arbitration. Judge Ann D. Montgomery signed the order on October 24, 2022.