Glover v. Verizon Wireless

Background

Wilbert Glover, representing himself, sued over alleged racial discrimination by employees of Verizon and Verizon’s authorized retail agent, Victra. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982. The court previously ordered the parties to arbitrate under the Verizon Wireless Customer Agreement and stayed the case.

The American Arbitration Association conducted an evidentiary hearing by conference call on June 16, 2023. On June 23, 2023, the arbitrator awarded Glover $1,000 against Verizon and Victra. The award stated that it fully settled all claims submitted to arbitration. The claims against the individually named defendants were dismissed with prejudice in the arbitration. Verizon and Victra later paid Glover the full award, and Glover cashed the check.

Glover’s Objection

Glover later objected to the arbitration award. He argued that the arbitration system favored Verizon, that the arbitrator failed to consider affidavit evidence, and that the damages award was inadequate.

The court treated the objection, to the extent it sought to vacate or modify the award, as an untimely request under the Federal Arbitration Act. That law required notice of a request to vacate, modify, or correct the award within three months after the award was delivered. The award was issued on June 23, 2023, but Glover filed his objection on October 23, 2023. The court held that it therefore lacked jurisdiction to vacate or modify the award and overruled Glover’s objection.

Motion to Dismiss

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. They argued that the arbitration award barred Glover from pursuing the same claims in court under res judicata, a rule that prevents a party from relitigating claims already finally resolved.

The court took judicial notice of the arbitration award and related American Arbitration Association documents. It held that the arbitration award had the same preclusive effect as a court judgment because the parties had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence, the arbitrator considered their testimony, and the award adjudicated all of Glover’s claims. The court also held that the arbitration proceeded under the customer agreement and the court’s order compelling arbitration, involved the same parties, and concerned the same alleged racial discrimination based on the same underlying events.

Because all the requirements for res judicata were present, the court held that Glover could not seek relief in this action based on the same claims and allegations presented in arbitration. The court agreed that any effort to vacate or modify the award was also untimely.

Disposition

The court ordered that:

The opinion notes that “Verizon Wireless” and “Victra Connecting Technology of Life” were incorrect names for the corporate defendants and that the individual defendant’s first name was correctly spelled “Christhian,” not “Cristhian.”