Marino v. CVS Health

Background

Sarah Ritter Marino, representing herself, sued CVS Health and CVS employee Hillary Williams. The opinion identifies Marino’s former employer as CVS Rx Services, Inc., and notes that CVS Health was the incorrect name used in the lawsuit. Marino alleged that the defendants interfered with and retaliated against her for exercising rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act; discriminated against her based on pregnancy under the New York State Human Rights Law; and failed to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Marino alleged that during her second pregnancy in 2019, her supervisor required her to work unpaid overtime, including overnight work, and threatened to terminate her if she refused. She also alleged that after taking family-medical leave in 2020, she was asked to perform unpaid work during that leave. After returning to work in 2021, she said she complained about her treatment, CVS’s staffing practices, working conditions, and a medication-dispensing error. She alleged that she was ultimately forced to end her employment in January 2023 in retaliation for those complaints.

Arbitration Agreement

CVS moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to compel arbitration and stay the case under the Federal Arbitration Act. CVS introduced an employment arbitration policy in October 2014. The policy covered legal claims arising from employment or its termination, including wage, leave, discrimination, retaliation, and termination claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and other employment laws. It also covered disputes about the policy’s validity or enforceability and stated that employees could opt out within 30 days by sending written notice.

CVS’s records showed that Marino completed a required online training course on October 13, 2014. The course required employees to view the arbitration policy and then click “Yes” on an acknowledgment slide. That acknowledgment stated that the employee had read and understood the agreement and that, without opting out, the employee and CVS would have to arbitrate covered legal claims instead of resolving them in court. Marino did not dispute that she completed the training, acknowledged the agreement, or failed to opt out on time.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied contract-formation principles under New York law. It concluded that the training materials clearly and prominently presented the arbitration agreement and that Marino’s electronic acknowledgment showed her assent. The court rejected her argument that she signed under pressure because she needed to complete the training, reasoning that the 30-day opt-out provision meant she was not forced to remain bound by the agreement. The court also rejected her contention that the agreement was hidden in the presentation or policy guide.

The court determined that the arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated questions about the agreement’s validity and enforceability to the arbitrator. As a result, the arbitrator—not the court—would address those issues, except for the court’s determination whether an agreement to arbitrate existed in the first place.

The court separately rejected Marino’s argument that her work as a registered pharmacist and pharmacy manager fell within the Federal Arbitration Act’s exclusion for certain transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. Although Marino handled, dispensed, and occasionally delivered medications that moved through interstate commerce, the court concluded that CVS did not operate in the transportation industry. It therefore held that the transportation-worker exclusion did not apply.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stay this action. The parties were ordered to arbitrate their dispute, and the case was stayed pending arbitration. The Clerk was instructed to administratively close the case, without prejudice to either party moving by letter to reopen it within 30 days after the arbitration proceedings conclude. The opinion did not decide the merits of Marino’s employment claims.