Mancilla v. ABM Industries, Incorporated

Background

Aurelia Mancilla alleged that she worked briefly as a night-shift janitor for ABM Industries, Inc. at the Atlanta International Airport. She alleged that, shortly after she began working, her supervisor Eddie Sanders forced her to have sex with him. She sued Sanders, ABM, and Scott Salmirs, asserting state-law tort claims and a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The ABM Defendants moved to compel arbitration and asked the court either to dismiss or stay the action. They relied on a Mutual Arbitration Agreement used in ABM’s electronic onboarding process. The agreement broadly covered claims arising from or relating to the employee’s hiring, employment, or separation from employment, including claims against the company’s officers, directors, and employees. It also waived class, representative, and collective procedures and the right to a jury or judge trial to the extent permitted by law.

Agreement Formation

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, the court had to decide whether the parties agreed to arbitrate and whether the agreement covered Mancilla’s claims. The court applied New York law because both sides relied on it.

ABM did not submit a copy of the agreement bearing Mancilla’s own signature, but it submitted the agreement, the Employee Acknowledgment, onboarding records, and a declaration describing the electronic process. The records showed that Mancilla accessed the employee portal and electronically signed the Employee Acknowledgment on August 31, 2018. Mancilla stated that she did not recall seeing the Mutual Arbitration Agreement, but she did not dispute signing the Employee Acknowledgment or completing the electronic onboarding process.

The court concluded that the Employee Acknowledgment referred to the agreement’s defined term “Covered Claim” and contained the same language as the agreement’s final paragraphs. Considering the record as a whole, the court found that ABM had shown that Mancilla agreed to the Mutual Arbitration Agreement. The court also ruled that her lack of recollection did not create a factual dispute requiring a trial.

Unconscionability

Mancilla argued that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because of the disparity in bargaining power between her and ABM and the speed of the hiring and onboarding process. She also argued that the agreement was substantively unconscionable because it covered a broad range of employment-related claims.

The court rejected both arguments. It ruled that unequal bargaining power between an employer and employee, standing alone, did not make the agreement procedurally unfair. It also found that the record did not establish deceptive or high-pressure tactics. As to substantive unconscionability, the court emphasized that the agreement was mutual rather than one-sided: it required both the employee and employer to arbitrate covered employment-related claims. The court concluded that Mancilla’s claims, although described as egregious, fell within the agreement’s scope.

Disposition

The court granted the ABM Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Because the claims against those defendants were referred to arbitration and a stay was requested, the court stayed the action as to the ABM Defendants pending completion of arbitration rather than dismissing it. The court ordered Mancilla and the ABM Defendants to update the court about the arbitration by October 30, 2020.

The court also determined that Mancilla’s request for permission to file a sur-reply and conduct limited discovery was no longer necessary because the court had not relied on the new material in the reply declaration. The court ordered Mancilla to notify the court by August 7, 2020, whether she intended to pursue the action against Sanders. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order.