Johnson v. Strategic Financial Solutions, L.L.C.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-08565
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnson v. Strategic Financial Solutions, Judge Failla ordered a video conference about the parties’ anticipated arbitration-related motions.
The order affects Jessica Johnson and the defendants in the case by requiring them to attend a video conference about the anticipated arbitration-related motions.
What happened
In Johnson v. Strategic Financial Solutions, Jessica Johnson alleged that Strategic Financial Solutions and other defendants discriminated against female employees in pay, created a sexually hostile work environment, and fired her in retaliation for protected activity.
The defendants anticipated asking the court to compel arbitration, pause the case while arbitration occurred, and/or dismiss the complaint. Johnson opposed those motions, asserting that the arbitration agreement was forged and asking for an evidentiary hearing and sanctions.
The court did not decide whether arbitration was required or whether the agreement was authentic. Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the parties to appear by video conference on December 4, 2020, to discuss the issues raised in their letters.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Strategic Financial Solutions, L.L.C. · No. 1:20-cv-08565
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
Jessica Johnson sued Strategic Financial Solutions, L.L.C., and other defendants. In a letter responding to the defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference, Johnson’s lawyer stated that the complaint alleged sex-based wage discrimination under federal and New York equal-pay laws, a sexually hostile work environment, and retaliatory termination.
The defendants anticipated moving to compel arbitration, stay the action pending arbitration, and/or dismiss the complaint. Johnson opposed those anticipated motions. Her lawyer asserted that the arbitration agreement produced by the defendants was forged and that Johnson denied signing an arbitration agreement during her employment. The letter described alleged irregularities in the document and requested an evidentiary hearing to determine its authenticity, as well as sanctions.
Court’s Action
The court stated that it had received the parties’ pre-motion letters. It ordered the parties to appear for a video conference to discuss the issues raised in those letters. The conference was scheduled for December 4, 2020, at 11:00 a.m.
The court did not rule on a motion to compel arbitration, a motion to stay, a motion to dismiss, the authenticity of the agreement, or the request for sanctions. The order was signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla.
Docket Number Note
The provided case information and the letter identify the case as No. 20-cv-8586. The order separately directs the Clerk to file it in case number 20-cv-8565. The text does not explain that discrepancy.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.