United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Torresen United States Chief District Judge.
Emma Ceder brings this sex discrimination action against her
former employer, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
(“Securitas”). Securitas has
moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties'
agreement to arbitrate disputes arising out of the employment
relationship. Def.'s Mot. 1 (ECF No. 8). For the reasons
that follow, the Defendant's motion is
was employed by Securitas as a security officer from October
3, 2014 through July 29, 2016. Kirby Decl. ¶ 3 (ECF No.
10). She alleges that while on the job, she was sexually
harassed, subject to discrimination because of her gender,
and retaliated against for complaining about and opposing
this conduct, all in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act.
Compl. ¶¶ 23-38 (ECF No. 1).
first day of work, Ceder signed a Dispute Resolution
Agreement Acknowledgment (the
Acknowledgment, Kirby Decl. Ex. B (ECF No. 8-3). The
Acknowledgment states that
I have received a copy of the Securitas Security Services
USA, INC. (the “Company”) Dispute Resolution
Agreement (the “Agreement”) and I have read and I
understand all of the terms contained in the Agreement. I
understand that employment or continued employment at the
Company constitutes acceptance of this Agreement and its
terms. I further acknowledge that the Company and I are
mutually bound by this Agreement and its terms.
The Acknowledgement was also signed by a representative of
Securitas, Linda Bowe. Acknowledgment.
day Ceder also received a copy of, but did not sign, the
Securitas USA Dispute Resolution Agreement (the
“Agreement”). Kirby Decl. ¶
4 (ECF No. 10); Bowe Decl. ¶ 4 (ECF No. 14-1);
Agreement, Kirby Decl. Ex. A (ECF No. 8-2). The Agreement
states in pertinent part that it
applies to any dispute arising out of or related to
Employee's employment with Securitas . . . or termination
of employment. . . . [T]his agreement requires all
such disputes to be resolved only by an arbitrator through
final and binding arbitration and not by way of court or jury
trial. Such disputes include without limitation
disputes arising out of or relating to interpretation or
application of this Agreement, but not as to the
enforceability, revocability or validity of the Agreement or
any portion of the Agreement. The Agreement also applies,
without limitation, to . . . claims arising under the . . .
Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . and state statutes, if any,
addressing the same or similar subject matters, and all other
state statutory and common law claims.
¶ 1 (emphasis in original).
Federal Arbitration Act (the
“FAA” or the
“Act”) provides that “[a]
party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal
of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for
arbitration may petition any United States district court . .
. for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the
manner provided for in such agreement.” 9 U.S.C. §
4. It also provides for the stay of suits already in federal
court pending arbitration. Id. § 3.
courts will grant a motion to stay a case and compel
arbitration pursuant to the FAA when “(i) there exists
a written agreement to arbitrate, (ii) the dispute falls
within the scope of that arbitration agreement, and (iii) the
party seeking an arbitral forum has not waived its right to
arbitration.” Combined Energies v. CCI, Inc.,
514 F.3d 168, 171 (1st Cir. 2008) ...