Chang v. United Healthcare

Background

Antonio Chang, proceeding without a lawyer, sued United HealthCare Services, Inc., Kimie Wong, and Morgan Campa. He asserted discrimination, wrongful termination, and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Before beginning his employment, Chang electronically signed an acknowledgment stating that he had read and agreed to UnitedHealth Group’s Employment Arbitration Policy. The policy required covered employment-related legal disputes to be resolved through final and binding arbitration and included discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and statutory-law claims. The policy excluded claims that could not legally be made subject to mandatory arbitration under specified Department of Defense appropriations laws.

Chang’s employment ended on March 13, 2019. Afterward, he submitted an internal dispute-resolution appeal. He alleged that he received no information about the appeal’s resolution. He then filed an administrative discrimination charge and this lawsuit.

Defendants’ Motion

The defendants moved to compel arbitration of all claims other than Chang’s Title VII claims against United HealthCare, dismiss the Title VII claims against Wong and Campa, stay the claims against United HealthCare while arbitration proceeded, and dismiss the claims against the individual defendants.

Arbitration Ruling

Applying the Federal Arbitration Act, the court considered whether a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and whether Chang had failed or refused to arbitrate. The court found that Chang’s electronic acknowledgment created a valid arbitration agreement covering his ADEA, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law claims.

The court rejected Chang’s argument that the defendants could not enforce the arbitration agreement because they had not resolved his internal dispute-resolution appeal. It read the policy as making that process optional or encouraged, rather than requiring the defendants to complete it before seeking arbitration. Because Chang filed this lawsuit instead of arbitrating the covered claims, the court concluded that he had failed or refused to arbitrate them.

The defendants did not seek to compel arbitration of Chang’s Title VII claims against United HealthCare. The opinion states that the arbitration policy excluded claims that could not be subject to mandatory arbitration under the specified Department of Defense laws. The defendants stated that Chang could choose to arbitrate those Title VII claims against United HealthCare, but the court did not compel that arbitration.

Title VII Claims Against Individual Defendants

The court granted the defendants’ request to dismiss Chang’s Title VII claims against Kimie Wong and Morgan Campa because Title VII does not impose liability on individual defendants. The court expressly stated that this dismissal did not affect Chang’s pending ADEA, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law claims against Wong and Campa.

Stay of the Case

The court stayed the proceedings on all of Chang’s claims against all three defendants while arbitration proceeded. It found significant factual overlap among the Title VII, ADEA, New York State, and New York City claims. A stay would avoid separate, potentially duplicative proceedings and promote a faster and more economical resolution. The court stated that Chang’s Title VII claims against United HealthCare could remain in court or be arbitrated depending on his choice.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the motion to compel arbitration of Chang’s ADEA, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law claims. She dismissed Chang’s Title VII claims against Kimie Wong and Morgan Campa and stayed the case. The parties were ordered to submit a joint letter by April 10, 2020, stating whether Chang intended to arbitrate his Title VII claims against United HealthCare.