UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) THOMAS O’NEIL L MORG AN , ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 05-1757 (RM C) ) SCI EN CE AP P LIC AT ION S ) INTERNATIONAL CORP ORATION, ) e t al . , ) ) Defendan ts. ) )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Thomas O’N eill Morg an filed this ca se under the Fal se Claims Act (“F CA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729, in 2005. The Governme nt took an ex t ended pe riod of time to investigate and deter mine that it did not want to int erve ne, which it did in 2008

. At t h at p oint, Mr. Morg an’s counsel withdre w. He searc hed for new counsel without succe ss. Since Mr. Morg an ca nnot proce ed pr o s e on the FCA counts in the Complaint, they have be en dismissed. See Dkt. # 57. What remains is a single reta liation co u n t against hi s former employ er, Scie nce A

pplications I nterna tional Corporation (“ SAI C”). SAI C moves the Court to stay the case and compel Mr. Morg an to ar bitrate. See Dk t. # 53

. Mr

. Mo rg a n re sis ts. Ho we ve r, he sig ne d a “ Mu tua l A g re e me nt t o A rb itr a te Cla ims ” (“A rbitration Ag ree ment”) a nd must comply . There fore , the ca se will be stay ed and Mr. Morg an order ed to proc eed to a

rbitration. I. BACKG ROUND Mr. Morg an beg an working at SAI C on May 17, 2004. He signe d t h e A rbi tration-2-

Ag re e me nt o n M a y

10 , 2 00 4. Ac c or din g to t he sp e c if ic te rm s o f t

he Ar bit ratio n A g re e me nt: SAI C and Employ ee w ill settl e by ar b i tration all statutory , contra ctual and/or c ommon law claims or controversies (“claims”) that SAI C may have a g a ins t E mpl oy e e , or that E mpl oy e e may have a g a ins t SA I C or

a ny of its office rs, direc tors, employ ee s o r ag ents in their ca pacity as such or otherwise. Claims subjec t to arbitra tion include (i) cl ai m s for dis c ri min a tio n (in c lud ing , but n ot l imi te d to , a g e , d isa bil ity , ma ri ta l st a tus , medical c ondition, national origin, ra ce, r etaliation, sex, sex ual har assment or sexual orientation); (ii) cla ims for b rea ch of a ny contra ct or c ovenant (express or implied); (iii) claims for violation of any fede ral, state or

other g overnm ent law, statut e , r e g ulatio n o r o rd ina nc e ; and (i v) tor t c la ims (including , but not lim ited to, neg lige nt or intentional injury , defa mation and ter mination of employ

ment in violation of public policy ). SA I C M e m. , A r

b it r a ti o n A g r e e me n t ¶

1 [D k t. # 5 3 ]. Mr . M or g a n w a s te rm inate d b y SAI C on Dec e mbe r 8, 200 4. He the re a ft e r f ile d h is FCA Complaint on September 2, 2005. The Complaint includes Count 11, which alleg es re taliatory termination of employ

ment in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).

II

. LEGAL STANDARDS The public policy

of the United States g ener ally favor s arbitra tion. Pearcev. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc. , 828 F.2d 826, 829 ( D.C. Cir. 1987) (“the fede ral poli cy favor ing a

rbitration counsels that doub t s about the intended sc ope of a n ag ree ment to arbitrate be re solved in favor of the ar bitral process”). U nder the Fe dera l Arbitration Act ( “F AA”) a wr itten provision requiring arbitration of any

controve rsy

arising under a

contra ct or transac tion aff ecting commerc e is valid and enfor cea ble. 9 U. S

. C

. § 2

. Where such a written ag ree ment exis ts, a district court must, upon

a pp lic a tio n o f a

pa rt y to t he a g re e me nt, sta

y a ny pr oc e e din g pe nd inga rb itr a tio n in a c c or da nc e wi th the written a g ree ment. Id

. § 3. The FAA require s that when a court is pr esente d with a dispute that is c ov e re d b y

a n a rb itr a tio n a g re e me nt, the c ourt mus t or de r t he pa rt ie s to pr oc e e d to a rb itr a tio n in-3-

acc ord with the terms of the ir ag ree ment. Id. § 4.

Under the FA A, s tatutory claims may be subj ect to an ar bitration ag ree ment. Gilmer v. Inte rstate/Johnson Lane Corp. , 500 U. S . 20, 26 (1991). How ever , a par ty bring ing a

statutory claim will not be compelled to arbitrate hi s claim i f doi ng so would require him to foreg o substantive rig hts affor ded under

the statute. Id. a t 26 . A rb itr ati on wi ll b e c omp e lle d o nly in t ho se circ umstances in which a

claimant “e ffe ctively

may vindicate [his or her] statutory cause of ac tion in the arbitra l forum.” Id. at 28 (c itation omit ted) (a lteration in orig inal).

There are five fa ctors to consider in determining whether

an ar bitration ag ree m ent meets the re quirements of Gilmer : w hether the arbitra tion a g ree ment at issue (1) pr ovides for ne utral arbitrators; (2) provides for more than minimal discovery ; (3) re quires a w ritten awa rd; (4) pr ovides for all ty pes of relief that would otherwise be ava ilable in court; and ( 5) does not re quire a n employ ee to pay either unr easona

ble costs or a

ny arbitrator’s fees or expenses as a condition of ac cess to the arbitra l forum. Col e v . B ur ns In t’ l Se c . S

e rv s. , 105 F.3d 1465, 1482 ( D.C. Cir. 1997). III

. AN AL YSI S I n the instant case , there is no doubt tha t Mr. Morg an executed the Arbitration Ag re e me nt o n M a y

10 , 2 00 4, a nd

that he is f

ull y c omp e te nt t o und e rs tand its te rm s. He a rgue s, howeve r, that it would limit his r ights in importa nt w ay s compar ed to court litiga tion. W here parties dispute the scope of

an ar bitration ag ree ment, public policy weig hs in fav o r o f ar

bitration. See Pearce , 828 F.2d at 8 2 9

. At t h e same time, a statutory claim like that asser

ted her e will not be subject to arbitration if the agr eeme nt require s a cla imant to give up substantive r ights he would have had under the statute. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. , 500 U.S. at 26. Arbitration will be

c omp e lle d o nly

in t ho se sit ua tio ns in w hic h it wi ll all ow e a c h pa rt y the op po rt

un ity to f ull y vin dic a te-4-

his statutory

rig hts. Id. at 28. Pursuant to the Arbitration Ag ree ment at i ssue her e, the a rbitration proc edure s are those established by

the SAI C Employ

ment Arbitration Rules and Proc edure s, which ar e re fer ence d in t he Ar bit ra tio n Ag re e me nt a nd ma de pa rt the re of

. Ar bit ra tio n Ag re e me nt ¶ 4. Un de r tho se ru le s, the ar bitrator is a ne utral selec ted by the par ties from a list or lists proposed by the Amer ican Arbitration Association (“AAA ”). There is limit ed dis cover y (2 depositi ons) but a par ty may seek leewa y for more discovery

from the a

rbitrator. The arbitra tor is require d to issue a written a war d and s/he ca n order a full ra ng e of reme dies. Finally , only if the employ ee initi ates the a rbitration does s/h e have to pa

y a $1 50 fe e ; SAI C c ov e rs the ba lanc e of the AA A f

ili ng fe e a nd

a ll o the r f

e e s, c os ts and expenses of the arbit ra t o r and AAA for a dminist ering the ar bitration. Id. ¶ 5 (“ I f Employ ee initiates the arbitra tion, Employ ee shall deliver to SAI C with the written notice of ar bitration a che ck pay able to SAI C in the amou n t o f $ 1 5 0

. 0 0

. ”). When, a s here , SAI C calls for a rbitration, the employ ee is not re quired to pay any costs. Thus, the Arbitration Ag ree ment meets ea ch of the five require ments of Cole v. Burns International Security Se rvice s . Finally , the ar

bitration rules say

that if on the date an ar

bitration reque st is rece ived by SAI C, “ a ny

c la im, if a sse rt e d in a c ivi l a c tio n, wo uld have be e n ba rr e d by the a

pp lic a ble Sta tut e of L imitations , then the cla im shall be deeme d barr ed for purposes of a

rb it r a tion.”SAI C Employ

ment Arbitration Rules & Procedure s ¶ 1 [Dkt. #53]. Mr. M org an followe d the re quired proc edure s of the F CA in a dv a nc inghis c la ims a g a ins t SA I C and his c la ims th at the c or

po ratio n v iol a te d th e F CA would not be subject t o ar b i t ration i nasmuch a s an F CA relator stands in the shoes of the United States and the United St ates has not ag ree d to arbitra te FCA claims. Only beca use he c annot proc eed pr o s e on the F CA c la ims is Mr . Mor g a n lef t with a sin g le c la im of re ta liatio n, wh ic h is subj e c t to-5-

arbitration as that claim is only betwee n him and S AI C. His timeliness, howeve r, cannot be g ainsaid. The FCA has a six -y ear statute of limit ations which had ba rely beg un to run when Mr . Morg an filed suit and which had not be en exhausted whe n SAI C demanded a rbitration, much less eve n now. IV . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, the Court g rants De fenda nt’s Motion to C ompel Arbitration. A memor ializi ng Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.

Date : Ma y 8, 20 09 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t ed S t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge