Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00946/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00946-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

SWMW Management, Inc., Bell Road

Automall, Inc.,; Big Bell 21 LLC, d/b/a

Bell Road Kia, Inc., , 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 08-00946-PHX-GMS

ORDER

The Motion to Intervene of Applicant-in-Intervention Melissa Nagel (Dkt. # 10) is

denied. Ms. Nagel asserts that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) provides her with an

“unconditional right” to intervene in the EEOC’s complaint, and consequently she moves

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) to intervene in this action.

Contrary to Ms. Nagel’s argument, however, the section of the United States Code she

cites, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), does not provide for her intervention in this instance as of

right. 

Further, with their response, Defendants have included what they purport to be a

binding arbitration policy that constitutes part of their employment agreement with Ms.

Nagel. In this agreement Ms. Nagel agreed to submit to arbitration substantially all

grievances, including discrimination claims, arising from her employment. Parties can agree

Case 2:08-cv-00946-GMS Document 25 Filed 09/18/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

to submit claims brought pursuant to Title VII to binding arbitration, and if they do, such

agreements are enforced by the courts.. E.E.O.C. v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps,

345 F.3d 742, 749-51 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Circuit City v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 122-123

(2001). 

Defendants further argue that Ms. Nagel has no claims because they are all barred by

the statute of limitations. To substantiate this argument, Defendants submit EEOC’s decision

letter to Ms. Nagel in which the EEOC declines to pursue Ms. Nagel’s claims against

Defendants because Ms. Nagel did not bring the charges until after they had been barred. 

Ms. Nagel has not filed a reply. She thus apparently does not dispute the authenticity

of the arbitration agreement to the claims asserted in her proposed complaint in intervention.

Cf. LRCiv. 7.2(I). Further, Ms. Nagel does not assert that the claims asserted in her proposed

complaint in intervention have survived the statute of limitations bar. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Motion to Intervene of Applicant-inIntervention Melissa Nagel.

DATED this 18th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00946-GMS Document 25 Filed 09/18/08 Page 2 of 2