Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-02884/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-02884-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FRANCHESCA KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF THE

SOUTH, INC. and JOHN GILBERT,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

CIVIL ACTION NO.

2:12-cv-2884-WMA

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the court is a motion to compel arbitration filed by

defendants, Associated Grocers of the South, Inc. (“Associated

Grocers”) and John Gilbert (“Gilbert”). Doc. 15. Plaintiff,

Franchesca King (“King”), opposes the motion, doc. 18, and

defendants have responded. Doc. 20. For the reasons that follow,

defendants’ motion to compel arbitration will be granted.

FACTS

Associated Grocers is a wholesale grocery cooperative that

provides a variety of services for over 300 independent grocery

stores in five states. Since March 1, 2004, Associated Grocers has

presented all of its non-union employees with an Alternative

Dispute Resolution Policy (“ADR Policy”) that they must sign as a

condition of employment. The ADR Policy provides that employees

agree to submit all disputes involving “Covered Claims” to

arbitration. It further states that “Covered Claims” are “any and

1

FILED

 2013 Jan-04 PM 02:19

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:12-cv-02884-WMA Document 21 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 7
all disputes arising out of, or relating to, the employee’s

employment with the Company.” It goes on to list examples of

“Covered Claims” including but not limited to: “actions under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;” “any claim of retaliation,

including claims under Alabama Code Section 25-5-11.1;” and “tort

claims, (including, but not limited to, negligent or intentional

injuries, defamation, and sexual harassment).” Doc. 18-2, page 1-2.

It also states that employees have the same right as the company to

assert the ADR Policy and to require arbitration when faced with a

lawsuit brought by another employee and related to their

employment.

On April 8, 2004, King applied for a job with Associated

Grocers and was offered a non-union recoup clerk position. On April

9, 2004, she completed Associated Grocers’s employment paperwork,

including the ADR Policy, at which time she signed and dated the

ADR Policy’s acknowledgment and receipt form that stated:

I acknowledge that I have received and

reviewed a copy of Associated Grocers of the

South, Inc.’s Alternative Dispute Resolution

Policy (“ADR”) and I agree to this ADR Policy

as a condition of my employment. I understand

that, among other things, the ADR Policy

requires all non-union employees to arbitrate

certain Covered Claims defined by the Policy

rather than litigate such claims in court.

Doc. 18-2, page 7. King was also given an Employee Handbook with an

acknowledgment of receipt form that she signed and dated. It

stated:

2

Case 2:12-cv-02884-WMA Document 21 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 7
I acknowledge receipt of the Associated

Grocers of the South, Inc.’s Employee Handbook

and the fact that I have read and understand

it. I further acknowledge that the provisions

of employment stated in this handbook are not

contractual. Company policies and procedures,

whether included in this handbook or not, are

in no way contractually binding on any party.

Also, I understand that the company reserves

the right to amend, revoke, replace, suspend

or add, without notice, any or all of its

policies and procedures, whether or not

contained or referenced in this handbook.

Doc. 18-1 at page 29.

King began her work as a recoup clerk only after her

completion of these employment forms. She was later promoted to

work as a transportation clerk and/or transportation supervisor.

Beginning in January 2007 and continuing until the end of King’s

employment, John Gilbert was her supervisor. On March 25, 2011,

King’s employment was terminated. Associated Grocers maintains that

the reason for her termination was her excessive tardiness, but

King claims other reasons, and on September 5, 2012 she filed the

above entitled action that she was fired for discriminatory

reasons. She also alleges, among other complaints, that she was

subjected to a hostile work environment and that Gilbert sexually

harassed her. 

Defendants invoke the ADR Policy and assert that all of

plaintiff’s claims are “Covered Claims” under the ADR Policy and

3

Case 2:12-cv-02884-WMA Document 21 Filed 01/04/13 Page 3 of 7
that plaintiff should be ordered to arbitration.1

DISCUSSION

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 2, “preempts

state law to the extent that it treats arbitration agreements

differently than other contracts.” Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace

Corp., 428 F. 3d 1359, 1367 (11 Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court has th

clarified the statute by holding that employment agreements fall

under the FAA, and are thus enforceable as long as they involve

interstate commerce and are valid contracts under the governing

state law. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105

(2001). Defendants assert that King worked in five states, and that

this meets the interstate commerce requirement. King does not deny

that the interstate commerce element exists. However, she attacks

the validity of the contract.

The basis of King’s argument is an Alabama Supreme Court case

in which that court found that the inclusion of vitiating language

in the employee handbook invalidated the arbitration provision that

 Count 1 - “Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment” in violation of Title VII; 1

Count 2 - “Hostile Working Environment - Sexual Harassment” in violation of

Title VII; Count 3 - “Hostile Working Environment - Racial Harassment” in

violation of Title VII; Count 4 - “Disparate Treatment” on the basis of race

and gender in violation of Title VII; Count 5 -“Retaliation”in violation of

Title VII for protesting against racial and sexual discrimination; Count 6

- “Negligence, Wantonness and/or Recklessness” that caused emotional and other

injuries; Count 8 - “Negligent/Wanton Hiring, Training, Supervision, and/or

Retention of John Gilbert”; Count 9 - “Negligent/Wanton Hiring, Training,

Supervision, and/or Retention” of other employees; Count 10 - “Invasion of

Privacy. Plaintiff also listed Count 7 - “Respondeat Superior/Vicarious

Liability.” This is a theory of liability for which Associated Grocers could

be responsible for the acts of defendant Gilbert, but it is not an independent

cause of action.

4

Case 2:12-cv-02884-WMA Document 21 Filed 01/04/13 Page 4 of 7
also appeared in the handbook. Ex Parte Beasley, 712 So. 2d 338

(Al. 1998). In Beasley, the plaintiff had signed an acknowledgment

form providing, inter alia, that “no written statement or agreement

in this handbook. . . is binding.” Id. at 340. The Alabama Supreme

Court found that the words “no written statement” included the

handbook’s statement requiring employees to use arbitration, and

thus directed the trial court to vacate its order that compelled

plaintiff employee to arbitrate her claims against her employer.

Id. 

King asserts that her situation is analogous to

Beasley because the acknowledgment form she signed in her employee

handbook stated that the provisions are “in no way contractually

binding on any party.” However, King’s arbitration agreement was a

completely separate signed document that was not part of the

employee handbook. In Beasley, the court addressed such a

situation:

The acknowledgment form contained in

Brookwood’s standard employee handbook would

have created a binding obligation to arbitrate

under Patterson if Beasley had signed that

form; however, she did not sign that form. . .

. Absent Beasley’s signature on a document

that contains a valid arbitration clause, we

cannot hold that she agreed to arbitrate her

employment claims against Brookwood. 

Id. citing Patterson v. Tenet Healthcare, Inc., 113 F. 3d 832 (8th

Cir. 1997) (holding that the arbitration clause was an enforceable

contract because it was separate from the handbook and its

5

Case 2:12-cv-02884-WMA Document 21 Filed 01/04/13 Page 5 of 7
disclaiming language ). The situation before this court is much 2

more analogous to Patterson than to Beasley because the arbitration

agreement is a separate enforceable contract that is not affected

by the language of the employee handbook. There is no ambiguity in

the ADR Policy, which King is presumed to have read.

King argues that despite the separateness of the documents,

the handbook acknowledgment form language vitiates the arbitration

agreement because it says company policies are not binding on any

party “whether included in this handbook or not.” However, there is

no reason to look outside of the arbitration agreement to discern

its enforceability. “General contract law requires a court to

enforce, as it is written an unambiguous and lawful contract.”

Drummond Co., Inc. v. Walter Industries, Inc., 962 So. 2d 753 (Al.

2006). The arbitration agreement being unambiguous, the analysis

does not move to an examination of extrinsic evidence like the

employee handbook.

The arbitration agreement’s enumerated list of “covered

claims” for which arbitration is required includes each of the

types of claims brought by King. Therefore, not only is the

arbitration agreement a valid contract and thus enforceable under

the FAA, but it also applies to all of King’s claims. Furthermore,

 “We believe that the difference in language used in the handbook and 2

that employed in the arbitration clause would sufficiently impart to an

employee that the arbitration clause stands alone, separate and distinct from

the rest of the handbook. The reservation of rights language refers to the

handbook provisions related to employment, not to the separate provisions of

the arbitration agreement.” Patterson, 113 F. 3d 835.

6

Case 2:12-cv-02884-WMA Document 21 Filed 01/04/13 Page 6 of 7
the agreement states that the right to arbitration belongs to other

employees when they face a lawsuit brought by a fellow employee.

Therefore, Gilbert is allowed to force the arbitration of the

claims brought against him. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to compel

arbitration will be granted. A separate order effectuating this

opinion will be entered. 

DONE this 4 day of January, 2013. th

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

Case 2:12-cv-02884-WMA Document 21 Filed 01/04/13 Page 7 of 7