Torre v. Charter Communications, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-05708
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Torre v. Charter Communications, Judge Furman granted Charter’s motion to compel Vivian Lee’s claims to arbitration, stayed proceedings for Lee, and denied another motion as moot.
Vivian Lee’s claims were sent to arbitration, and the case was stayed as to Lee only. The opinion does not state that the other plaintiffs’ claims were affected. Charter’s motion to strike Lee’s declaration and related briefing was denied as moot, and the unredacted documents remained sealed.
What happened
In Torre v. Charter Communications, Inc., Vivian Lee and other NY1 employees alleged that Charter discriminated based on age and gender, retaliated unlawfully, and violated federal and New York equal-pay laws. Charter argued that Lee’s employment agreement required her claims to be arbitrated.
The court held that the agreement clearly assigned the question of whether Lee’s claims were covered by arbitration to the arbitrator, rather than the court. The agreement covered disputes about employment, discrimination, and retaliation, and gave the arbitrator sole authority to decide whether a claim could be arbitrated.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Charter’s motion to compel arbitration as to Lee and stayed the case only as to her. The court denied as moot Charter’s motion to strike Lee’s declaration and part of her legal brief because it had not considered those materials; the unredacted documents were to remain sealed.
The detailed version
- Torre v. Charter Communications, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-05708
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 4, 2020
Background
Vivian Lee and several other employees of New York One (NY1) sued NY1’s owner and operator, Charter Communications, Inc., doing business as Spectrum. The opinion says the plaintiffs alleged age and gender discrimination, unlawful retaliation, and violations of the federal and New York Equal Pay Acts.
Charter moved to compel Lee to arbitrate her claims. Lee’s employment agreement required disputes arising from or relating to her employment or its termination to be resolved through binding arbitration under Charter’s Mutual Arbitration Agreement. That agreement covered disputes that could be brought in court involving employment, termination, discrimination or harassment based on sex or age, and retaliation. It excluded claims involving corrective action or other performance management that did not result in termination.
Court’s analysis
The parties disputed whether Lee’s claims were covered claims or excluded claims. The court explained that arbitrability—the question whether a particular dispute must be arbitrated—is ordinarily decided by a court. But that presumption is overcome when an agreement clearly and unmistakably assigns that question to the arbitrator.
The court found that Charter’s Arbitration Agreement did so. It defined covered claims to include disputes about the arbitrability of any claim or controversy, and it stated that the arbitrator had sole authority to decide whether a particular claim or controversy was arbitrable. The court therefore did not decide whether Lee’s individual claims were covered or excluded.
Rulings
The court granted Charter’s motion to compel arbitration as to Lee. It stayed the case as to Lee only, rather than dismissing the claims. Lee and Charter were directed to file a joint status letter proposing next steps, if appropriate, within thirty days after the arbitration ended.
The court denied as moot Charter’s motion to strike Lee’s declaration and a related portion of her legal brief. The court had not considered the declaration, so there was no need to decide whether it contained privileged information. The court also ordered that the unredacted documents remain under seal because the redacted information was not relevant to the issues the court decided and disclosure could risk revealing privileged communications.
The opinion does not state that the claims of the other plaintiffs were compelled to arbitration or that the stay applied to them. The case caption identifies Roma Torre and others as plaintiffs, while the opinion’s discussion of the motion concerns Vivian Lee; the relationship between those names is not explained in the provided text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.