Lord v. Accenture LLP
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-10875
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lord v. Accenture LLP, Judge Furman compelled arbitration and stayed the case because Lord did not show her arbitration agreement was unconscionable.
Mariann Lord must pursue her asserted age-discrimination and New Jersey discrimination claims in arbitration rather than in the federal court action; Accenture LLP obtained the order requiring arbitration and staying the case.
What happened
Lord v. Accenture LLP involves Mariann Lord’s claims against her former employer, Accenture LLP, under federal age-discrimination law and New Jersey law. Her employment agreement required arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce’s rules.
Accenture asked the court to require arbitration. Lord agreed that her claims were covered by the arbitration clause but argued that the agreement was unenforceable because it was unfairly imposed and because the arbitration rules differed from federal court procedures. The court rejected both arguments.
Judge Furman granted Accenture’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the action while arbitration takes place, and administratively closed the case. Either side may ask to reopen the case by letter motion within 30 days after arbitration concludes.
The detailed version
- Lord v. Accenture LLP · No. 1:21-cv-10875
- Jesse Furman
- July 12, 2022
Background
Mariann Lord sued her former employer, Accenture LLP, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Accenture moved under the Federal Arbitration Act to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision in Lord’s employment agreement. The provision required arbitration under the then-existing rules of the International Chamber of Commerce.
Lord did not dispute that her claims fell within the arbitration provision. Instead, she argued that the provision was unenforceable because it was unconscionable, meaning so unfair in its formation or terms that a court should not enforce it.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected Lord’s procedural-unconscionability argument. Her argument relied solely on the parties’ unequal bargaining power. The court explained that unequal bargaining power alone is generally not enough to invalidate an employment arbitration clause. It also noted that, when she agreed to arbitrate, Lord was a senior executive with 23 years of professional experience and five years at Accenture.
The court also rejected Lord’s substantive-unconscionability argument, which relied on differences between the International Chamber of Commerce rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court stated that courts have frequently enforced arbitration clauses providing for arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce rules.
The parties disagreed about whether Pennsylvania or New York law governed the unconscionability issue. The court did not resolve that choice-of-law question because Lord conceded that the two states’ relevant laws operated similarly. The court concluded that Lord had not carried her burden of showing that the arbitration provision was unconscionable.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Accenture’s motion to compel arbitration. Because Accenture requested a stay, the court stayed the action pending completion of arbitration. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and administratively close the case. The order states that either side may move by letter to reopen the case within 30 days after the arbitration proceedings conclude.
The court did not decide the underlying age-discrimination or New Jersey discrimination claims. This order addressed whether those claims must proceed in arbitration rather than in court.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.