Givens-Keefer v. American Express Company

Background

Charlene Givens-Keefer brought the action pro se against American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., Susan A. Zhang, and Danielle Wallis. She alleged discrimination based on race, gender, age, and perceived disability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court also construed the amended complaint to raise claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Givens-Keefer alleged that she worked for American Express beginning in January 2011 and was allowed to work from home after experiencing medical symptoms. She described workplace events involving workload changes, negative performance evaluations, comments about her age and perceived disability, treatment during medical leave, restrictions on meetings and responsibilities, and problems involving sick leave and short-term disability benefits. She filed the lawsuit on May 8, 2018.

Arbitration Agreement

American Express moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss the amended complaint. To compel arbitration, the court considered whether a valid agreement or obligation to arbitrate existed and whether a party had refused to arbitrate.

Givens-Keefer alleged that she had never signed the arbitration-policy acknowledgment form. American Express argued alternatively that she had signed an offer letter conditioning her employment on agreement to the company’s employment-arbitration policy. The record showed that Givens-Keefer signed the offer letter on December 14, 2010. The letter stated that new or returning employees were subject to the policy, which made arbitration the final, exclusive, and required forum for employment-related legal disputes.

The court rejected the argument that Givens-Keefer’s lack of access to the company intranet during her first week of employment prevented agreement to arbitration. The court found that she received notice of the policy before beginning employment and had access to the arbitration agreement during the remainder of her employment. By receiving notice and continuing to work for American Express, she assented to arbitration.

The court further determined that the arbitration agreement covered all of Givens-Keefer’s claims. The agreement applied to legal claims arising out of or relating to employment or separation from employment, including discrimination and harassment claims based on race, gender, age, or disability.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. It denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, the court stayed the case because the claims were subject to arbitration. Although courts may sometimes dismiss an action when every issue must be arbitrated, Judge J. PAUL OETKEN declined to dismiss this case because Givens-Keefer was representing herself.

The parties were directed to notify the court within 14 days after arbitration concluded. If arbitration had not concluded by July 1, 2020, they were required to provide the court with a status letter. The order did not decide whether Givens-Keefer’s discrimination claims had merit.