### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20380
J AM I E LEI GH J ON ES; J OSEPH DAI GLE P la in tiffs J AM I E L EI GH J ONES P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. HALL I BURTON CO, d o i n gb u s i n e s s a s KBR Ke l l o g gBr o wn & Ro o t ; KBR TE CHN I CAL S ERVI CES I NC; OVERS EAS ADM I NI S TRAT I VE S ERVI CES L T D ; K E L L O G G B R O WN & R O O T S E R V I C E S I N C ; K E L L O G G B R O WN AND ROOT I NTERNAT I ONAL I NC; KEL LOGG BROW N & ROOT L LC ; KELL OGG BROW N & ROOT S DE R L; KEL LOGG BROW N & ROOT I NC; KBR I NC D efen da n t s- A pp el l an t s

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore B A R K S D A L E , D eM O S S , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es . R H E S AH A W K IN S B A R K S D A L E , C i rcui tJu dg e: T h i s i n t erl ocutory appea lf rom a parti alref

u salt o com pela rbi t rat i on c onc er ns t he arb i trab i l i t y v e lno n o f to r t c la im s b ya n e m p lo y e e w h o , w h ile w o r k in g a t a n o v e r s e a s lo c a tio n , w a s a lle g e d lyg a n g -r a p e db yh e rco -w o r k e r s in herbe dro om i n em pl oye r - pro vi ded hous i n g. H al l iburt on C om pany/K el l ogg United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20380

2 B r o w n & R o o t, a n d v a r io u s a ffilia te s (H a llib u r to n /K B R ), co n te s t t h e d e n ia l, in p a r t, o f t h e i rm o tio n to co m p e l a rb itr a tio n o f J a m ie L e ig h J o n e s ’cla im s c onc er ni n g h eral l ege d r ape b y H al l iburt on/K B R em pl oye es , w hi l e s he w as st ati on ed at a com pa n y faci l i t y i n B agh da d, I raq. A l lof her cl ai m s w ere deem ed arbi t rabl e except f

or: (1 ) assaul tan d ba t t ery; ( 2) i n t en t i on ali n f l i ct i on of em ot i onaldi st r es s ar i si ng outof t he al l ege d as sa ul t ; ( 3) negl i genthi r i ng, r et ent i on, and supervi si on of em pl oye es i nvolved i n t he al l ege d as sa ul t ; and ( 4) fa ls e im p r is o n m e n t. A ti ssue i s w h et h er t h ose f ou r c l ai m s f

ou n d n on - arbi t rabl e are, f or pu rposes of

Jon es’em pl oym en tcontr act , “ rela te d to [her] em pl oym en t” or constitu te p e rs o n a l i nju ry“a risin ginth e w o rk p la ce ”. T h a t con t racti n corporat ed H a l l ib u rton /K B R ’ s d i sp u te re solu ti on pr og ra m (D R P ), w h i ch req u i red h er to a rbi t rat e al lcl ai m s brough tagainstt h e com pa n y fal l i n g w i t h i n t h e sc ope of r el at ed- t o o rw or kpl ac e l anguage. I n t he al t er nat ive, s houl d t he al l ege d r ape b e deem ed covered by the arbi t rat i on cl au se, at i ssue i s w h et h er t h e doct ri n e of uncl ean hands pr ec l udes gr ant i ng equi t abl e re l i ef of spec i f i c enf or c em entof

t hat c l a u s e . A F F I RMED a n dR EMANDE D. I. Jones be gan w or ki ng f orH al l iburt on/K B R i n 2004 as a n adm i ni st r at ive a s s is ta n t in H o u s to n , T e x a s . S h e a lle g e s : w h ile s o e m p lo y e d , sh e w a s s e x u a lly h a ra sse db y h er su p erv i sor; a n d , b eca u se of th i s, s h e d em a n d ed to be m ov ed to a n oth er d ep a rtm en t. O n 21 Jul y 2005, J on es si gned a c ont r ac tw i t h D ef endantO ver se as A dm i n i st rat ive S ervi ces ( O A S ) , a f orei gn , w h ol l y- ow n ed su bsi di ary of H al l ibur t o n/K BR , t o b e e m pl o ye d a s c l e r i c a lwo r k e rf o rthe c o m pa ny i n Bag hda d. P a ra gr a p h 26 of th i s con tract p rov i d ed , i n pe rti n en t pa rt: Y ou . . . a gree t h at you w i l lbe bou n d byan d accept as a cond i t i on of you r em pl oym en tthe t erm s of t h e H al l ibu rt on D i spu t e R esol u t i onN o. 08- 20380

3 P ro g ra m w h i ch are herei n i n corporat ed byref erence. Y ou u n d ersta n dtha t t h e D i sp u te R eso l u ti on P rog ra m req u i res, as i ts l ast st ep, t h at any a n d a l lcl ai m s t h at you m i gh tha ve aga i n st E m pl oyer r e lat e d t o y o ure mploy m e nt , i nc l udi ng yo urt e r m i nat i o n, a n da n ya n da ll persona l i n j u ry cla im [s ] ari si ng i n t h e w orkplace , you ha ve agai nstot herpar entoraf f i l i at e o f E m pl oye r , m ustbe s u b mi t t e dt o b i n d i n ga rb i t r a t i o n i n s t e a do f t o t h e c o u r ts y s t e m. ( Em pha s i s a dde d. ) (Jo ne s ’i ni t i al s a ppe ara t t he bo t t o m o f t hi s pa r ag r ap h. ) The i n corporat ed D R P , i n t u rn, provi des:

“ D i s put e ” m e ans a l ll e ga la nd e quit ab l e c l ai m s , de m and s , a nd con trov ersies, of w h a tev er n a tu re or k i n d , w h eth er in co n tract, tort, unde rs t at ut e o rr e gul at i o n , or s o m e o t he rl aw, b e t w e e n pe r s o ns bo und byt he Pl an o rb y an ag r e e m e ntt o r e s o lve D i s put e s und e rt he P l a n . . . i n cl u d i n g, bu t no t li m i tedto, an y m a tt e r s w ith resp ect to

. . . any p e rs o n a li n

j u r ya l lege d l

yi n c u r r e di n o ra b o u taCo mp any w orkplace
. ( Em pha s i s a dde d. ) (As d i s c us s e d i nf ra , a l t h ou gh the em pl oym en tcontr actuses
“ ar i s i ng i n t he w o r kpl ac e ” , t he i nc o r po r at e d DR P us e s “i nc ur r e d i n o r a b o u t a co m p a n yw o rk p la ce ”. (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) ) Jones ’j ob as si gnm en t p l ac ed heri n t he U ni t ed St at es A r m y’ s C ent r al C om m an d A rea of O perati on s, l ocat ed i n t h e “ G reen Z on e” , a w el l

- kn ow n area o f B a g h d a d
. T h e G r e e n Z o n e is ate n -s q u a r e -k ilo m e te ra r e a th a t w a s in itia lly t h e c e n t e r o f t h e Co a l i t i o n Pr o v i s i o n a l Au t h o r i t y a f t e r t h e I r a q i i n v a s i o n , a nd c o n tin u e s to re m a in th e ce n te ro f th e in te r n a tio n a l p r e s e n c e in th e cit y . Fourda ys a f

t e rs i gni ng he rem pl o ym e ntc o nt r ac t , J o ne s a r r ive d i n t he G r e e n Zo ne o n 2 5 July 2005 an d be ga n wor ki ng atCam p H o pe , w hi c h s he al l eges w as un der t h e di rectcontr olan d au t h ori t y, coll ect ive ly, of t h e U n i t ed St at es D epar t m ent s of St at e and D ef ens e, and H al l iburt on/K B R
. H ous i ng w as p rov i ded f

orheras a t er m of herem pl oym entc ont r ac t . Al t hough she had i ni t i al l y r eques t ed, and c l ai m s she w as pro m i se d, a pr ivat e b i l l et i ng ar ea t o b e sha red only w i t h w om en , she w as i n st ead h ou sed i n a barracks, som e di st an ce f rom her w orkp l ace, occ u pi ed p redom i n an t l y by m al e em pl oyees.N o. 08- 20380

4 Jon es al l eges she w as subjec t ed to u n w a n t ed sexu alha rassm en tal m ost i m m ed i a tel y. O n 27 Ju l y, t w o d a ys after a rrivi n g i n Ira q , Jo n es co m p l a i n ed to s e ve r alH al l ibur t o n/K BR m ana ge r s a bo uthe rs e xua l l y- ho s t i l e l ivi ng e nvir o nm e nt , a nd r e que s t e d t hats he b e ho us e d i n as af e rl o cat i on . She con ten d s: n o a cti on w a s tak en ; an dsh e w a s, i n stea d , ad vised to “go to th e sp a ”. Th e ne xtev eni ng, on 28 Jul y, Jo nes al l ege s t hat , fol l ow i ng a s oc i al gat her i ng outsi de herbar r ac ks, atw hi c h al c oholhad bee n co nsum ed, s he w as dru gged , beaten, an d ga n g- raped by severalH al l ibu rt on /K B R em pl oyees i n her b a r r a c k s b e d r o o m . Al l e g e d l y , wh e n s h e a wo k e t h e n e x t m o r n i n g , n a ke d a nd s e ve r e l y br ui s e d, s he di s c o ve r e d o ne o f t he a l l e ge d p e r pe t r at o r s lyi ng i n t he l o w e rb unk i n he rb e dr o o m . Att hatt i m e , he a l l eged ly ad m i t t e d t o ha vi ng u n protec t ed sex w i t h her. Jon es receivedseveral seri ou s i nj u ri es as a r esul tof t h e al l egedi n ci den t , i n cl u di n g t orn pector alm u scl es, w h i ch w ou l d l aterrequi re r ec ons t r uct ive sur ger y. Jon e s rep ort ed the rape to an ot h er em pl oyee an d w as t ak en t o see H al l ibu rt on /K B R m edi calpersonn el
. Arape kitw as adm i n i st ered at a U n i t ed S ta te s A r m y -r u n h o s p ita l. J o n e s a lle g e s H a llib u r to n /K B R s u b s e q u e n tly m i shandl ed t he r ape ki t . Sh e f urt heral l ege s: af

t erherr ape- ki tpr oc edur e w as perf orm ed, she w as pl aced u n der arm ed gu ard i n a contai n er an d n otperm i t t ed t o l eave; an d, despi t e rep e a te d r e qu est s t o be al l ow ed to do so, she w as den i ed ac c e s s t o a t e l e pho ne t o c o nt ac t he r fam i l y, unt i l s he c o nvi nc e d o ne o f he rg uar ds t o al l ow her t o t el eph on e her father. A dd i t i on al l y, Jon es al l eges she m etw i t h H al l ibu rt on ’ s h u m an res ou rces personn elan d h er di rectsup ervi sor f ol l ow i n g h er ph ysi cal exam i n ati on , w h ere she w as i nt er r ogat ed f ors eve r alhour s. Sh e c ont ends herK B R s uper vi so r s gave he rt w o o pt i o ns : t o s t aya nd “ get over it” ; o rt o r e t ur n ho m e w i t ho utt he

“ gu aran t ee” of

a j ob on ret u rn. Jones’father w a s e v e n tu a lly able t o enl i st C on gressi on alassi st an ce t o sec u re her r et u rn to t h e U n i t ed S t ates.N o. 08- 20380

5 In i ti a l l y, Jon es fi l ed a co m p l ai n t w i th the E q u a lE m p l oy m en t O p p ortu n i ty C om m i ssi on . I tcondu ct ed an i n vest i gati on an d d et erm i n ed: she h ad been sex u a l l y a ssa u l tedbyon e or m ore em p l oy ee s; ph ys i ca ltrau m a w a s ap p a ren t; an d H al l ibu rt on /K B R ’ s i n vest i gati on ha d been i n ad equ ate. In F ebru ary 200 6, Jon es f i l ed a dem an d f

or arbi t rat i on a g a i n st H al l ibu rt on /K B R , cl ai m i n g: neg l i gen ce, neg l i gen tun dertaki n g, an d gross n egl i gen ce i n rel ati on t o t h e cl ai m ed s exu al h arassm en t an d ass au l t . Sh e l ater am en ded t h e dem a n d to in cl u de cl ai m s un der T i t l e V IIan d the T exas L abor C od e. A d d i ti on a l l y, she f i l ed f or, a n drece ive d , w ork ers’com p en sa ti on be n efi ts unde rt he D e fe ns e Bas e Ac t , di s c us s e d i nf ra . U po n r e t ai ni ng ne w c o uns e l , J o ne s f i l e d t he i ns t antac t i o n, bas e d o n t he sa m e c la im s , in distri ct cou rt i n M a y 2 0 0 7 ag a i n st: H a l l ib u rton /K B R an di ts vari ou s af

f i l i a tes; t h e U n i t ed S t ates; an d i n divi du aldefen da n t s, i n cl u di n g h er f i rstsup ervi sor i n H ou st on , t h e al l egedperpetrat or s h e f ou n d l yi n g i n her be dr o o m , a nd s e ve r al“Jo hn Doe Rapi s t s ”
. (Jo ne s ’hus ba nd was n am ed as a pl ai nt i f f; am ended c om pl ai nt s h ave r em ove d hi m as a par t y. ) The ac t i on w as t r ans fe r r e d t o a no t he rdi s t r i c ti n Te xa s i n J ul y 20 07 ; J o ne s no n- s ui t e d t he U ni t ed St at es t hatSept em ber ; and t he i ndivi dualdef endant s have not m ade a n ap pea ran ce. Jon es’F ou rt h A m en ded C om pl ai n tasser t ed cl ai m s f or: neg l i gen ce (w h i ch e nc o m pa s s e d t he above- de s c r ibe d c l ai m , t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tde e m e d no narbi t rabl e, f

or t h e n egl i gen t h i ri n g, ret en t i on , an d su pervi si on of t h e em pl oyees i nvo lve d i n t he a l l e ge d a s s aul t) ; ne gli ge ntund e r t ak i ng; s e xua lha r as s m e nta nd ho s t i l e w o r k env i r o nm e ntunde rT i t l e V I I ; re t al i at i o n; br e ac h o f c o nt r ac t ; f

r aud i n t he i nduc e m e ntt o e nt e rt he e m pl o ym e ntc o nt r ac t ; f r audi n t he i nduc e m e nt t o a gr ee to a rb i t r at i on; as sa ul tand bat t er y; i nt ent i onali nf l i c t i on o f

em ot i onal di st ress ; an d fal se i m pri sonm en t . (A l t h ou gh Jon es’com pl a in t on l y assert ed H al l ibu rt on /K B R ’ s actio n s “am ou n t ed to fal se i m pri sonm en t” , an d d i d n otN o. 08- 20380

6 spe c i f i c al l y pr es enti tas a c l ai m , the di st r i c tcour tconf i r m ed ata hear i ng t hat Jon es di d i n t en d to asserta fal se- i m pri sonm en tcl ai m ; a ccor di n gl y, i tconsi dered t he arbi t r abi l i t y o f

t hatc l ai m as w el l
. ) S he c ont ended H al l iburt on/K B R w as v ic a r io u s lylia b le fo rth e to r ts co m m itt e db yits e m p lo y e e s . In N ovem ber 200 7, H al l ibu rt on /K B R m ovedt oc o m pe la rbit r ati o n o f J o nes’ c l ai m s and st ay t he pr oc ee di ngs. In M a rch 2008, t he di st r i c tc our thear d or al a r g u m e n t o n th a t m o tio n . T h at M ay, i n a t h orough an d w el l

- reasoned opi n i on an d order, t h e di st ri ct c o ur tg r ant e d i n pa r ta n d den i ed i n pa r tH al l ibur t o n/K BR ’ s m o t i o n. Fo rt he r e as o ns th a tf

o l l o w , i tc o m pe l l e d a rbit r at i o n f o ra l lc l ai m s , e xc e pt : ( 1) a s s aul ta nd batt ery; ( 2) i n t en t i on ali n f l i ct i on of em ot i on al di st ress ari si n g ou t of t h e al l eged assau l t ; ( 3) neg l i gen thi ri n g, ret en t i on , an d su pervi si on o f e m pl oyees i n volved i n the all eg ed ass a u l t; an d( 4 ) fal se im p ri son m en t. In so ho l d i n g, th e dist ri ct cou rt con cl u d ed th ere w a s a va l i dag ree m en t t o arbi t rat e, rej ect i n g Jon es’con t en t i on s that: there w as n o m eet i n g of t h e m i n ds; th e a rb i tration cl a u se w a s f ra u d u l en tly in d u ced ; the pr ov i sion w a s con traryto pu bl i c pol i cy; a n d en f orci n g t h e agreem en tw ou l d be u n consci on able. I tal so r ej e c t e d J o ne s ’a l t e r nat ive c o nt en t i o n t hat , pur s uantt o t he e quit ab l e do c t r i ne o f unc l e an hand s , t he a rbit r at i o n a gr e e m e nts ho ul d no tb e e nf o r c e d. H aving deci ded t h e arbi t rat i on agr e e m e n ti s val i d, t h e di st ri ctcourt t u rned t o w h et h e r J o n e s’ cl ai m s f el loutsi de the agreem en t ’ s s cope. A f t er dete r m i ni ng t he pub l i c po l i c y e xp r e s s e d i n t he Tex as Arb i t r at i o n Actdi d n ot gov er n t he ques t i on o f s c ope ( as Jones had urge d) , t he di st r i c t c our t f ound t hat cert ai n cl ai m s fe l lo ut s i de t he s c o pe o f t he pr o vi s i o n. Rec o gni z i ng t hatt he a rb i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n a ti s s u e i s b r o a d , i th e l d t h e f o u ra b o v e - l i s t e dc l a i ms rel ated t o t h e a ll e g ed rap e ( assau l tan d ba t t ery; i n t en t i on ali n f l i ct i on of em ot i on aldi st ress ; neg l i gen thi ri n g, ret en t i on , an d su pervi si on of t h e em pl oyees i nvolved; and fal se i m pri so nm ent) “fal lbe yond t he o ut erl i m i t s of ev en a b r oadN o. 08- 20380

7 a rb itr a tio n p r o v is io n ” a n dw e r e “n o t r e la te dt o M s . J o n e s ’e m p lo y m e n t”
. Jon es v. Hall i bu rt on Co. , N o. 4: 07- C V

- 2719, 2008 W L 2019463, at*9 ( S. D
. Tex. 9 M ay 2 0 0 8 ). W h i l e noti n g t h at ov erseas, rem ot e em pl oym en t , such a s Jones’ , ha s l ed t o a l iberali n t erpret ati on i n t h e case l aw of t h e “s cope of

em pl oym en t” f

or pur po s e s o f

w o r ke r s ’c o m pe ns at i o n ( s pe c i f i c al l y, the Def

e ns e Bas e Ac t) , t he di st ri ct cou rtconcl u ded : l iberalconst ructi on coul d n ot“be i n corporat ed w ho l e s al e i nt o t he i nt e r pr e t at i o n o f a n a rbit r at i o n pr o vi s i o n” ; and, as s uc h, t he al l egedrape coul d n otbe con si dered rel ated to h er em pl oym en tf or purp oses of arbi t rat i on si m pl y becau se itm i gh t be consi dered w i t h i n t h e sc ope of e m p lo y m e n t fo rw o r k e r s ’co m p e n s a tio n p u r p o s e s . I d. a t * 1 1 . F i n al ly, th e di st rictcourthel d: alth ou gh th e a rb itra tion p ro v ision ex t en ded t o pe r so nal

- i nj ury c l ai m s “ ar i si ng i n t he w or kpl ac e” , t he cour t“d[i d] n otbe l i eve [Jo ne s ’] b e dr o o m s ho ul d b e c o ns i de r e d t he w o r kpl ac e , e ve n t ho ughhe rho us i ng w a s p r o v id e db yh e re m p lo y e r”. I d. at*1 0. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r to r d e r e dl i t i g a t i o n o f t h e f o u rn o n - a rb i t r a b l e c l a i ms s t a y e du n t i la rb i t r a t i o n i s c o mp l e t e do n t h e o t h e rc l a i ms . Th o s e o t h e rc l a i ms w er e o r der ed t o b e a rbi t r at ed. Th i s i nt er l oc ut or y appealw as f i l ed i n June 2008. II. As i s w e l l e s t ab l i s he d, pur s uantt o t he Fe de r alAr bit r at i o n Ac t( FAA) , o ur c o u r th a s j u r is d ic tio n o v e rad is tr ic t c o u r t’s re fu s a l to co m p e l a rb itr a tio n . 9 U
. S
. C
. § 16 (a)(1 ); e . g. , Re p ub l i cI ns . Co
. v . PAICORe c e i v a b le s , LLC , 383 F. 3d 3 4 1 , 3 4 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e d e n ia l o f a m o t i o n to co m p e l a rb itr a tio n is r e vi e w e d de no vo . E. g. , Sh e r e rv . Gr e e n Tr e eSe r v i c i ngLLC , 548 F. 3d 379, 381 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). At w o- st ep a n a l ys i s i s em pl oye d t o de t er m i ne w het hera par t y m ay be c o m p e lle dto a rb itr a te . I d. Fi r s t , w he t he rt he pa r t y has ag r e e d t o a rbit r at e t he di s put e i s exam i ne d. Thi s q ue s t i o n i t s e l f i s f ur t he rs ubd ivi de d; t o de t e r m i neN o. 08- 20380

8 w h e th e rth e p a r tyh a s a g r e e dto a rb itr a te a d is p u te , o u rco u r t m u s t a s k : “(1 ) is th e r e av a lida g r e e m e n tt o a r b itr a te th e cla im s a n d(2 ) d o e s th e d is p u te in q u e s tio n fa ll w ith in th e s c o p e o f th a t a rb itr a tio n a g r e e m e n t”
. I d. (c i t i ngJP Mo rga n Chas e & Co. v . Conegi e ex r e l
. L ee , 4 9 2 F .3d 5 9 6 , 5 9 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 )). If both qu est i on s are an sw ered i n t h e af f i rm ative, ou r court t h en asks w h et h er “a n yfe d e r a l s ta tu te o rp o lic y r e n d e r s th e c la im s n o n a rb itr a b le ”. Id
. ( quo t i ngJP Morgan Ch ase , 4 9 2 F .3d a t 5 9 8 ). N ei t herpar t y c ont end s th a t a fede r als t at ut e o rpoli c y w oul d bar arbit r at i o n; a c c o r di ngly, o ura nalys i s i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t he f i r s tst e p. Fur t he r , t he di st ri ctcourthel d, an d n ei t h er p art y di spu t es on ap pea l–w i t h t h e excepti on of Jo ne s ’a l t e r nat ive unc l e an- hand s c o nt e nt i o n–t hat ther e w as av al i d a nd en f orceabl e agreem en tt o arbi t rat e. A s s u ch, our i n qu i ry f ocuses on the qu est i on o f s c o pe : w he t he rt he di s put e i n q ue s t i o n–t he a l l e ge d r ap e –fal l s w i t hi n t he s c o pe of t h e a rb i tration ag ree m en t. A. P aragrap h 25 of

Jon es’em pl oym en tcontr actst ates: Th i s A gr ee m enti s f or m ed i n t he St at e o f Texas and s hal lbe go ve rn ed bya n dco n stru ed in a ccord a n ce w i th the l a w s of t h e S tate of T exas; except t h at w i t h respect t o al lm att ers or di spu t es r el ated t o thev ali di t y or enf

orceabi l i t y of

provi si on 26 bel ow [t h e arbi t rat i on cl au se] , al li ssues shall be govern ed by an d c on st rued i n accor da n ce w i th the F ed era lA rb i tration A ct. Jo ne s c o nt e nds : t he F AAappli e s onl y w he n de t e r m i ni ng w he t he rt he a gr e e m e nt t o arbi t rat e i s “vali d” or“ en f orceabl e” as a w h ol e; an d t h e scope of a n arbi t rat i on ag r e e m e nti s adi s t i nc tq ue s t i o n t hat , u n der t he t e r m s o f he re m pl o ym e nt c o n tr a c t, is g o v e r n e db yT e x a s la w . To t he e xt e ntJ o ne s i s m ai nt ai ni ng, a s s he di d i n d i st r i c tc o ur t , t hatt he p u b lic p o lic yin t h e T e x a s A rb itr a tio n A c t (T AA), T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . §1 71. 001 e ts e q. , di c t at e s he rpe r s o nali nj ur y c l ai m s fal lo ut s i de t he s c o peN o. 08- 20380

9 of t h e arbi t rat i on agreem en t , w e rej ecther contentio n . E ssenti al l y, Jon es c o n te n d e din d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t th e a rb itr a tio n a g r e e m e n t w a s n o t e n fo r c e a b le f or h er p erso n a l -i nj u rycl a i m s be ca u se, u n d er T ex a s l a w , the T AAm a n d a tes that a g r e e m e n ts to a rb itr a te s u c h cla im s , in tera lia , b e si gn ed by each party’ s l aw yer. S ee T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 171
. 002 (i n st ructi n g t h e T AAdoes not ap pl y t o “ a c l ai m f

o r pe r s o nal i nj ur y” unl e s s “ ( 1) e ac h pa r t y t o t he c l ai m , o n t he ad vi ce of

coun sel , agrees i n w ri t i n g t o arbi t rat e; an d ( 2) t h e agreem en t i s s i gn ed b ye a c h p a r tya n de a c h p a r ty ’ s a tt o r n e y”). W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n c lu s io n t h a t, “ to th e e x te n t . . . § 171
. 002 of

t h e T AAaf

fect s t h e enfor ce a b ili tyof t he agr ee m ent , i t w ou l d be p r e e m p te db yt h e FAA”. Jon es , 2 0 0 8 W L 2 0 1 9 4 6 3 , a t * 7 (em p h a sis inor igin a l). A ccor di n gl y, an d essenti al l y f or t h e reasons st ated by the di st ri ctcourt , w e al so concl u de that w h et h er Jones’cl ai m s fa llo u t si de the scope of t h e arbi t rat i on p r o v i s i o n i s n o tb a s e do n t h e p u b l i c p o l i c ys t a t e di n t h e T AA. B. Al t ho ught he pub l i c po l i c y o f t he T AAdo e s no tg o ve r n t he s c o pe o f t he arbit r at i o n pr o vi s i o n, o urc o ur tm us tde c i de w he t he rJo ne s ’c l ai m s de e m e d no narbit r ab l e b y t he di s t r i c tc o ur to t he r w i s e fal lou t si de of t he s c o pe o f

t he arbit r at i o n c l aus e o f t he e m pl o ym e ntc o nt r ac t . As di s c us s e d, i n t hi s r e ga r d, t he

“ r e l at e d t o ” a nd “w o r kpl ac e ” l ang uag e c o m e s i nt o pl ay . I tg o e s w i t ho uts ay i ng t hatt he r e i s as t r o ng fe de r alpo l i c y i n fav o ro f a rbit r at i o n. W hen det er m i ni ng w h eth er a di sput e i s c ove r ed byt he s c ope of an arbit r at i o n agr e e m e nt , t he Supr e m e C o ur thas hel d t hat“ anydo ubt s c o nc e r ni ng th e sco p e of arb i trab l e i ssu es sh ou l db e reso lve din fav or of arb i tration ”. Saf er v. Nelson Fi n . G roup I n c. , 4 22 F. 3d2 89 , 2 94 ( 5t h C i r. 2 00 5) ( quo t i ngMo s e s H. ConeMe m . Ho s

p. v . Me r c ur

yCons t r . Cor

p. , 4 6 0 U .S
. 1 , 2 4 -2 5 (1 9 8 3 )). A ccor di n gl y, our courtha s hel d: “ [A] val i d ag reem en tt o arbi t rat e app l i es ‘ u n l ess i tcan be sai d w i t h posi t ive assuran ce tha t[t h e] arbi t rat i on cl au se i s notN o. 08- 20380

10 su scep tib l e of an i n terp reta ti on w h i ch w ou l dcov er th e d i sp u te at i ss u e’”. Pers on al S ec. & S afe ty S ys. I n c. v. Mot o rola I

n c. , 297 F
. 3d 388 , 392 ( 5th C i r. 20 02 ) ( quo t i ngNe alv . Har de e ’ s Fo o d Sy s . , I

nc ., 9 1 8 F .2d 3 4 , 3 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 0 )). 1. H al l ibu rt on /K B R f

i rstcontends the di spu t e i s c overed by t h e arbi t rat i on agreem en tbecau se t h e al l egedi n ci d e n ti s “rel ated t o” her em pl oym en tf or pu rposes of

t h e em pl oym en tcontr act ’ s arbi t rat i on cl au se. Th i s c l au se provi des, i n per t i nentpar t : “Y ou u n d ers t and t hatt he D i sput e Reso l ut i on Pro gr am req u i res, as i ts l a st step , tha t any a n da ll claim s t h at you m i gh tha ve aga i n st E m p loyer re la tedto y o u r e mp loy m en t . . . mus tb e s u b m i t t e dt o b i ndi ng a rb itr a tio n in s te a do f to th e co u r t s y s te m ”. (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) O urc o ur tha s c har ac t e r i z e d s i m i l ara rbit r at i o n c l aus e s a s b r oad a nd c ap ab l e o f

e xp ans ive r e ac h. S ee Penn zoi lExplorati on & Prod. Co. v. R am co Ener gyLt d. , 139 F
. 3d 106 1, 1 0 6 7 (5 th C i r. 199 8) (n ot i n g: “ courts di st i n gu i sh

‘ nar r o w ’a rbit r at i o n c l aus e s t hato nl y r e quir e arbit r at i o n o f di s put e s ‘ ar i s i ng o ut of ’t h e contr actfr om broad arbit rat i on cl au ses govern i n g di spu t es t h at ‘rel ate t o’ o r‘ ar e c o nne c t e d wi t h’t he c o nt r ac t” )
. Of c o ur s e , a l t ho u gh this re ac h i s b r o ad , it is n o t u n b o u n d e d
. Pen n zo ilr e c o gni z e d t hatadi spu t e n ee d o nl y “ ‘ t o uc h’ m a tt e r s co v e r e db y” t h e a r b i t r a tio n a g r e e m e n t t o b e a rb itr a b le , i d. at1068 ( quot i ng Mi t sub i shi Mot ors Corp. v. S oler Ch rysler- P l ym ou t h , I

n c. , 473 U
. S. 614, 6 2 4 n .1 3 (1 9 8 5 )); in th e s a m e d is c u s s i o n , h o w e v e r , it d e fin e da n a rb itr a b le di s put e und e ra b r o adc l aus e a s o ne “hav i ng a s i gnif i c antr e l at i o ns hi p t o t he con tract”–h ere , Jo n es’e m p l oy m en t co n tract– “reg a rd l ess o f th e lab el attach ed to th e d is p u te ”. Pen n zo il , 139 F
. 3d at 106 7. I t f u rt h er n ot ed: “ [ E ] ven broad cl au ses h a v e th e irlim its ”. I d. at1067 n. 8. a. T h e case l aw i s divi ded on the arbi t rabi l i t y, un der si m il ar arbi t rat i on c l aus e s , o f

e m pl o ye e s ’c l ai m s pr e m i s e d o n s e xua la s s aul t . As no t e d b y t heN o. 08- 20380

11 di s t r i c tc o ur t , t he M i s s i s s i ppiSuprem e C o ur the l d i n Sm i t h exr e l
. Sm i t h v. Cap t a i n D’

s , LLC , 963 S o. 2d 111 6 (M i ss. 200 7) , t h at pl ai n t i f f ’ s cl ai m againsther e m pl o ye rf

o rne gli ge nthi r i ng, s upe r vi s i o n, a nd r e t e nt i o n o f he rm ana ge r , w ho al l eged l y sexu al l y assau l t ed pl ai n t i f f, w as “ u n qu est i on ably” beyon d the scope of th e a rb itr a tio n c la u s e a t is s u e . I d. at 112 1. In t h at act i on , t h e arbi t rat i on cl au se p rov i d ed tha t all“cl a i m s, d i sp u tes, o r con trov ersies a ri singou t of or relati n g to [h e r] . .
. e m p lo y m e n t” w o u ldb e re s o lv e dth r o u g h a rb itr a tio n . I d. a t 1 1 2 0
. Pl ai nt i f f, ar e s t aur ante m pl o ye e , al l e ge d t hat he rm ana ge ra s s aul t e d a nd r a p e dh e ra t t h e re s ta u r a n t d u r in gw o r k in gh o u r s . I d. at1 11 8. I n a ddr e s s i ng t he ques t i on o f sc ope , t he M i ss i ss i ppi Su pre m e C our t hel d: “ [A] c l ai m of s exual a ssa u l t ne i th er p erta i n s to n or h a s a co n n ection w i th [p l a i n tiff ]’ s em p l oy m en t”. I d. a t 1 1 2 1 ; seealso Ni oletv. R i ce , N o. 2008- C A

- 00922- C O A , 2009 W L 1199114, at*2 (M i ss . C t . A pp. 5 M ay 200 9) (c i t i ng Ca p ta in D ’sin n o t in gth a tp la in t if f’s c la im s o f a s s a u lt a n db a tt e r ya g a in s t h e rs u p e r v is o rin a n a lle g e ds e x u a l a s s a u lt w e r e “ no tdir e c t l y or i n di r e c t l y r e l at e d t o he re m pl o ym e nt” f o rpur po s e s o f

t he com p a n y’ s ar b i tration ag ree m en t beca u se “th e p rov i sion i s l i m i tedto em pl oym ent
- r el at ed c l ai m s” and “ a c l ai m f oras sa ul ta n d b a tter y i n no w ay to u ch e s u p o n m a tte rs co v e re db yth e a g re e m e n t”). O t h er c ou rt s hav e reached si m i l ar concl u si on s w h en deter m i n i n g w h et h er an em pl oye e’ s c l ai m s c onc er ni ng s exualas sa ul tfal lw i th i n t he s c ope of an arbit r at i o n a gr e e m e nt . I n Hi l lv. Hi l l i ard , 9 4 5 S .W .2d 9 4 8 (Ky . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), p la in tiff s u e d h e re m p lo y e ra n dh e rs u p e r v is o rcla im in g , in tera lia , a s s aul ta nd b a ttery, i n ten ti on a li n fli cti on of em oti on a ldistress, a n d fa l se im p ri son m en t, af t e rhe rs upe r vi sor al l eged l y r ap e d he rw hi l e t he y w e r e a t t e ndi ng a w o r kr e l at e d conv e nt i o n. Def e nda nt s m o ve d t o di s m i s s a nd c o m pe la rbit r at i o n, c o n te n d in gth e cla im s w e r e w i t h in th e s c o p e o f th e a rb itr a tio n p r o v is io n in pl ai n t i f f ’ s em pl oym en tcontr act , w h i ch m an da t ed arb it r ati o n f o ra ny c o nt r o ve rsy “a r is in go u t o f e m p lo y m e n t”
. I d. at950.N o. 08- 20380

12 T h e t ri alcourt a g reed w i t h defen da n t s; t h e app el l ate c ou rt , how ever, conc l ude d t hatt he c l ai m s o f a s s aul ta nd b at t e r y andfal s e i m pr i s o nm e ntw e re di sm i ss ed er r oneo usly. I th el d: “The onl y co nnect i on tho se t or t s and cr i m es have w i t h [ pl ai n t i f

f ] ’ s e m pl o ym e nti s t hatt he y w e r e c o m m i t t e d b y a c o - w o r ke ra nd o c c u r r e dw h ile o n ab u s in e s s tr ip ”. I d. at 952
. “ T h e m ere factt h at t h ese t ort cl ai m s m i gh tnot hav e ari sen bu tf or t h e fact t h a tt h e t w o i n divi du al s w ere t ogether as a re su l tof an em pl oyer- spon sored t ri p can n otbe deter m i n ative. W hat[t he s upe r vi sor] is a c c us e d o f do i ng i s i nde pe nde nto f t he e m pl o ym e nt relati on sh i p . ” I

d. Th e sc ope of t hat arbi t r at i on pro vi si on w as , of c our se , m or e nar r ow t han t h e on e at i ssue, yet t h e resul t i s n o l ess vali d f or broadl y- constr u ed arbit rat i on c l ai m s : i n m o s tc i r c um s t anc e s , as e xua la s s aul ti s i nde pe nde n to f a ne m p l o y m e nt r e la t io n s h ip
. S ee A bou

-K h ali lv. Mi les , N o. G 037 752 , 200 7 W L 158 945 6, at *2 ( C al
. D i st . C t . A pp. 4 June 2007) (unp ubl i she d) (not i ng t hatc l ai m s of i nt ent i onal i nf l i c t i o n o f e m o t i o nal di s t r e s s , as s aul t , andb at t e r y “ do no tno r m al l y ar i s e o ut o f th e e m p lo y m e n t c o n te x t, in t h a t th e yw o u ldb e a c tio n a b le e v e n if p la in tiff d id no tw o r k wi t h de fen da nt” a nd t hat“ s e xua la s s aul ti s no tno r m al l y w i t hi n t he c o u r s e a n ds c o p e o f e m p lo y m e n t” ); cf. T ol l i ver v. KrogerCo. , 498 S. E
. 2d 702, 713 (W
. Va
. 1 9 9 7 ) ( d e t e r m i n i n g , i n a n a c t i o n i n v o lv i n g wh e t h e r a n a s s a u l ta nd ba t t e r y c l ai m fe l lw i t hi n t he s c o pe o f t he c o m pa ny’ s col l e c t ive b ar ga i ni ng agreem en tf

or purp oses of

resolvi n g t h e con f

l i ctthrou gh g ri evan ce proc edu res, t h at “ [ a] ssaultan d ba t t ery condu cti s not a pa rtof, nor a cond i t ion of e m p lo y m e n t” ). O n th e o th e rh a n d , so m e co u r ts h a v e h e lds e x u a l -a s s a u lt c la im s d o fa ll w i t h i n t h e sc ope of

arbi t rat i on agreem en t s s i m i l ar to the on e at h an d. For exam pl e, t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ct of N ew Y ork h el d r ecentl y t h at, f or purp oses of arbi t rat i on , a sexua l

- assau l tcl ai m w as “ rel ated t o” pl ai n t i f f ’ s em pl oym en tw h en th e a ssa u l t w a s com m i tted b y a m em b er of h er co m p a n y’ s u p p er m a n a ge m en t,N o. 08- 20380

13 occurred ata w ork confer en ce at t en ded by plai n t i f f as part of

her responsibi l i t i es f o rt he c o m pa ny, a n d contribut e d t o a n a l l e ge d p at t e r n o f s e xua lha r as s m e nt th a t h a do c c u r r e da t w o r k
. F orbes v. A
. G
. E d w ard s & S on s, I n c. , N o. 08- C V

- 552, 200 9 W L 424 146 , at *8 ( S
. D
. N
. Y
. 18 F eb. 200 9)
. I n t h e i n st an tact i on , how ever, th e a lle g e ds e x u a l a s s a u lt o c c u r r e da fte rh o u r s , w h e n J o n e s w a s o ff d u tya n din h e rb e d r o o m . Li ke w i s e , i n B arker v. Hall i bu rt on Co. , 5 4 1 F
. Supp. 2d 879 ( S. D
. Tex. 200 8) , di scussed an d d i sagreed w i t h by the di st ri ctcourti n t h e i n st an taction (butr e l i e d up o n a s pr i m ar y aut ho r i t y byt he D i s s e nt) , t he c o ur te xa m i ne d t he s am e a rbit r at i o n l ang uag e a s i n t hi s a c t i o n a nd c o nc l ude d: fal l i ng w i t hi n t he s c o pe o f t he arbit r at i o n pr o vi s i o n wer e pl ai nt i f f ’ s c l ai m s o f

ne gli ge nc e , ne gli ge nt unde r t ak i ng, s e xua lha r as sm e nta nd h o s t i l e w o r k e nvir o nm e nt , r e t al i at i o n, fr a u d , a n d in te n tio n a l in flic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s , a r is in gfr o m , in tera lia , an al l e ge d s e xua la s s aul tb y a St at e D e pa r t m e nte m pl o ye e w hi l e i n pl ai nt i f f ’ s l ivi ng q u a rters in Ira q . Itgro u n d ed this con cl u sion on plain tiff ’ s vicariou s -lia b il i ty t h eori es bei n g “ predic ated on the fai l u re of t h e H al l ibu rt on defen da n t s’ em pl oye es t o f

ol l ow c om pany pol i c i es r egar di ng, am ong o t herth i n gs , s exual h a r a s s m e n t” , i d. at 887, and on hernegl i gent
- und er t aki ng c l ai m s al l egi ng t hat H al l ibur t o n “ negl i ge nt l y unde r t o o k t o pr o vi de pr o pe rt r ai ni ng, a de qua t e a nd s uf f i c i e nts af

e t y pr e c aut i o ns . . . , [ and ] a de qu ate an d s uf f i c i e ntpo l i c i e s a nd p r o c e d u r e s in th e r e c r u itm e n t, tr a in in g a n dp la c e m e n t o f p e r s o n n e l in Ir a q”, i d. I n s o ho l di ng, t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti n B arker com m en t ed on t h e un i qu e na t u re o f pl ai nt i f f ’ s w o r k env i r o nm e nt , no t i ng t hat , f o ro ve r s e as e m pl o ye e s , t he r e i s no b r ig h t lin e b e tw e e n w o r k a n dle is u r e tim e . Id
. C i t i ng O ’ K e ef f ev . Pan Am e r i c an W orldA i rw ays , Inc. , 338 F
. 2d 319 , 322 ( 5th C i r. 196 4) , a case i n volvi n g t h e reach of w or ker s’com pensa t i on u nderthe D ef ens e B as e Act , i tr ul ed t hat , f orov er se as e m pl o ye e s s t at i o ne d i n re m o t e l o c at i o ns , t he “ s c o pe o f t he e m pl o ym e ntN o. 08- 20380

14 ag r e e m e nta nd it s a rbit r at i o n c l aus e ” e nc o m pa s s e s i nc i de nt s t hato c c uro ut s i de th e w o r k e n v ir o n m e n t. B arker , 541 F. Supp. 2d. at887- 88. T h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s d i sagreem en ti n t h i s act i on w i t h t h e above-descr ibed de c i s i o n i n B arkeris s o u n d : “J u s t b e c a u s e a n a s s a ila n t’s a c tio n s h a p p e n to b e in v io la t io n o f h is e m p lo y e r ’s p o li c ie s , a n dth o s e p o li c ie s a ls o g o v e r n p la in t if f’s b e h a v io r , d o e s n o tn e c e s s a r il yr e n d e rth e a s s a u ltr e la t e dto p la i n t i ff ’s e m p lo y m e n t fo rp u r p o s e s o f a rb itr a tio n ”. Jon es , 20 0 8 W L 20 1 9 4 6 3 , at *1 0
. It m ay be (and , as th e D i ssent al so r e co g n ize s a t 4 note 1, Jon es w i l lha ve t o so prove, of

course, t o prevai lon h er vi cari ou s- l i abili t y cl ai m ) t h at t h e al l eged perpetrat ors w ere act i n g i n w ays that r el ated t o th eire m p lo y m e n t b e c a u s e , in assau l t i n g Jon es, t h ey w ere vi ol ati n g com pa n y pol i ci es. B u tt h e pe r pet rat ors’ c o n d u c tc o n c e r n i n gc o mp a n yp o l i c i e s d o e s n o te x p l a i n h o w Jon esw a s a c tin gin any w ay rel at ed t o he rem pl oym entby bei ng t he al l ege d vi c t i m of a s exual a s s a u lt. Fur t he r , i n t he i ns t antact i on , unl i ke i n B arker , Jon es has cl ai m ed H al l ibur t o n/K BR i s v i c ar i o us l y l i ab l e f o r t he as s aul t . Thi s di s t i nc t i o n wi t h t he B arkerdeci si on , coupled w i t h our concl u di n g t h at t h e di st ri ctcourti n t h i s act i on properl y an al yzed a n d d eem ed as n on - arbi t rabl e cl ai m s t h at overl ap w i t h t h ose ana l yz e d i n B arker(n e g li g e n ce a n din te n tion a l in fli ctio n of e m o tion a l dis tre ss ), s t r e ngt he ns o urho l di ng t hatJ o ne s ’c l ai m s w e re bey on d t he s c o pe o f t he arbit r at i o n c l aus e r e ga r di ng t he “ r e l at e d t o ” po r t i o n. b. The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s r e fe r e nc e i n B arkerto th e “s c o p e o f e m p lo y m e n t” in t he c ont extof

w or ker s’c om pensa t i on m erit s f urt herdi sc uss i on. As not ed byt hat cou rt, as w ellas b y H a l l ib u rton /K B R i n this action , S u p r e m e C ou rt an dF i ft h C i rcui tj u ri sprud en ce has est abli shed a liberalcon st ructi on fort h e t erm “ course ands c o pe o f

e m pl o ym e nt” f

o rpur po s es of

w o r ke r s ’c o m pe ns at i o n und e rt heN o. 08- 20380

15 D efe ns e Bas e Act , 42 U
. S. C. § § 16 51
- 54 (pr o vi de s w o r ke r s ’ c o m pe ns at i on for m a n ye m p lo y e e s s ta tio n e do u ts id e o f th e U n ite dS ta te s ). H al l ibu rt on /K B R contend s t h at t h i s broad constr u ct i on i n th e w orkers’ com pen sati on contextprovi des su p p o rt t h at, f or purp oses of

t h e arbi t rat i on pro vi si on, Jones ’ c l ai m s ar e “ r el at ed t o” her em pl oym ent . I ndeed, i n orde r to receive w orkers’com pen sati on f or her i nj u ri es, Jon es ackn ow l edg ed that t h ey h a db e e n s u s ta in e din th e co u r s e a n ds c o p e o f h e re m p lo y m e n t. I n O ’ K eef f e v. Pan A m eri can W orldA i rw ays (19 6 4 ), ou r cou rt no tedtha t, forem p loy e e s w o rk in gu n d e rt h e D e fen se B a se A ct, “[p ]er so n a l ac tiv iti e s o f a so c i alorr ec r eat i onalnat ure m u stbe c ons i der ed as i nci dentt o t he o ver se as e m p lo y m e n t r e la tio n s h ip ” b e c a u s e th e s e e m p lo y e e s w o r k “fa ra w a yfr o m th e ir fam i l i es and f

ri en ds, i n rem ot e pl aces w h ere t h ere are severely l i m i t ed recr eati on alan d soci alact ivities , [ an d] are i n di f ferent c i rcum st an ces f rom em pl oyees w orki n g at hom e”
. 338 F
. 2d at 322
. O u r court n ot ed that C on gress h a de v in c e dad e s ir e fo rth e D e fe n s e B a s e A c t t o b e “lib e r a ll yc o n s t r u e din c o nf o r m anc e w i t h i t s pur po s e , and i n aw ayt hata vo i ds ha r s h a nd i nc o ngr uo us resul t s” , an d to est abli sh the sam e f i n al i t y f

or t h e com p e n sa t i on deci si on s of de put y c om m i ss i o ne r s a s ha d b e e n e s t ab l i s he d wi t h t he Lo ngs ho r e m e n’ s a nd H a rb o rW o r k e r s ’C o m p e n s a tio n A c t . I d. The c as e l aw s upp o r t s ac o nc l us i o n t hatt he l ibe r alco ns t r uc t i o n of “ s c o pe o f e m pl o ym e nt” f

o rpur poses o f

w o r ke r s ’c o m pe ns at i o n i s no tne c e s s ar i l y t he sa m e sta n d a rdto be ap p l i ed w h en con stru i n g a n arb i tration pr ov i sion w i th s i m i l arl ang uag e . I n O ’ L eary v. B row n - Pacific-Ma x on , I n c. , 340 U
. S. 504, 506 ( 195 1) , t h e C ou rtan a lyz ed the l an gu age of t h e L on gsh orem en ’ s and H arbor W o rk e rs ’C o m p e n sa tion A ct (in to w h ich th e D e f en se B a se A ct w a s in co rp o ra te d ), w h i ch au th orizes p a ym en t of com p en sa ti on f

or “ac c id e n ta li nj u ryor d ea th ar i s i ng o uto f

a nd i n t he c o ur s e o f e m pl oym ent”
. 3 3 U
. S. C. § 9 02 ( 2)
. I tno t e d:

“W o r km e n’ s c o m pe ns at i o n i s no t c o nf i ne d by c o m m o n- l aw c o nc e pt i o ns o f s c o peN o. 08- 20380

16 o f e m p lo y m e n t”
. O ’

L eary , 3 40 U
. S
. a t5 06. In exp l ai n i n g h ow t o deci de w h et h er an em pl oyee can rec over un der t h e A ct , t h e C ou rtst ated: “ T h e t estof rec overy i s not a cau salrel ati on shi p betw een t h e n a tu re o f em pl oym en tof

t h e i nj u red person a n d the acci den t . . . . A l lth a t is requi red i s t h at t h e obl i gati on s or cond i t i o ns o f

e m pl o ym e ntc r e at e t he z o ne o f s pe c i alda nge ro uto f w hi c h t he inju r ya r o s e ”. I

d. a t 5 0 6 -0 7 (in te rn a l q u o ta tion m a rk s an dcita tion om itted ); se e a ls o Ho t a r d v . De v o n Ene rg yPro d. Co
. , L. P. , 308 F
. A pp ’ x 7 3 9 , 7 42 (5t h C i r. 2009) (unp ubl i she d) (c i t i ng O ’ L eary i n h oldin g t h a t an em p l oy ee w a s en ti tl ed to w o r k e r s ’co m p e n s a tio n fo ra s p id e rb ite s u ffe r e dw h ile s le e p in gin ab u n k o n h is em pl o ye r ’ s o f

fs ho r e o i lr i g be c aus e t he c o ndi t i o ns r e quir i ng s l e e pi ng t here cr e a te dth e “zo n e of sp e cia l da n g e r” o u t of w h ich th e inju rya ro se ). In d e e d , a s n o te d b y th e d is tr ic t co u r t in th e in s ta n t a c tio n , th e d is s e n t in O ’ L eary w as concerned t h at, un der t h i s s t an da rd, an em pl oyer’ s l i abili t y f or w o r ke r s ’c o m pe ns at i o n woul df o ll o w “f r o m th eme r e r e l at i o ns hi p o f e m pl o ye ra nd e m p lo y e e ”. O ’

L eary , 340 U
. S
. at 509 (M i n t on , J. , di ssenti n g)
. Th e arbi t rat i on s ta n d a r da t is s u e h e r e , w h i l e b r o a d lyco n s tr u e d , st ill re q u ir e s , in tera lia , a d is p u te “r e la te d to ” a p la in tiff ’ s e m p lo y m e n t t o h a v e “a s ig n ific a n t r e la tio n s h ip to th e co n tr a c t”
. Pen n zo il , 1 3 9 F .3 d a t 1 0 6 7
. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s n o te d , in t he c o nt e xto f

ER I SA pr e e m pt i o n: “I f ‘ re l at e t o ’w e r e t ak e n t o e xt e nd t o t he f ur t he s ts t r e t c h o f

i t s i nde t e r m i nanc y” , t he phr as e w o u l dno tha ve m uc h l i m i t i ng p o w e rb e c a u s e “[r ]e a lly , u n iv e r s a lly , re la tio n s s to p n o w h e r e ”. N.Y
. S ta te Conf ere n ce of B l u e C ross & B l u e S h i eld P lan s v. TravelersI n s. Co. , 514 U
. S. 645, 6 5 5 (19 9 5 ). I n i nt e r pr e t i ng t h e a rbit r at i o n pr o vi s i o n a ti s s ue , a nd i n t he l i ghto f t he ab o ve - di s c us s e d p recedent, w e concl u de that t h e provi si on ’ s s cope cer t ai nly s t o ps atJ o ne s ’b e dr o o m do o r , a s f ur t he rdi s c us s e d i nf ra . A s s u ch , itw as not c ont r adi c t or y f

orJones t o r ec eive w or ker s’c om pensa t i on undera s t andard t hat al l ow s r ec ove r y s ol ely be c ause herem pl oym entc r eat ed t h e “ zo ne o f s pec i alN o. 08- 20380

17 danger” w hi c h l ed t o he ri nj uries, y etc l ai m , i n t he c ont extof arbi t r at i on, t hat t h e al l egati on s th e di st ri ctcourtdeem ed n on - arbi t rabl e di d n otha ve a “si gn i fi ca n t rel a ti on sh i p ” t o h er em p l oy m en t con tract. c. H a l l ib u rton /K B R also p oin ts t o s ev era lw ork ers’com p en sa ti on cas es to m ai n t ai n t h at, b e ca u se Jones l ivedi n em pl oyer- provi ded hou si n g, t h e al l eged i nc i de nt o c c ur r i ng t he r e w as r e l at e d t o he r e m pl o ym e nt . I tc o nt e nds de c i s i o ns such as B a r b a r is ev . O v e r lo o k Ho s p it a l A s s ’n , 21 1 A
. 2 d81 7 ( N
. J
. S u p er. C t. 19 65 ) , a nd D oe v. S t . Mi ch a el’ s Med icalCente r of

New ark , 445 A
. 2d 40 (N
. J. S u p er. C t. 1 9 8 2 ), p rov i d e sup p ort for h oldin g t h a t a n i n ci d en t occu rrin gin em p l oy er-p rov i d ed do rm i tories “aros e ou t of a n d i n th e cou rse o f em p l oy m en t”. I n D oe , pl ai nt i f

f, am e di c alt e c hno l o gi s tem pl o ye d b y t he de fe nda nt hos p i tal and l ivi ng i n t he hos pi t aldor m i t or y, w as f ound t o have r ec eived an i nj u ry ari si n g “ ou tof an d i n t h e course of

em pl oym en t” , enti t l i n g h er t o w orkers’ c o m p e n s a tio n , a fte rs h e w a s a tt a c k e din h e rd o r m ito r yro o m . D oes t at ed t hat t he l e ad i n g au t ho r i t y o n wor ke r s ’c o m pe ns at i o n l aw had de t e r m i ne d:

“ [ C] o m pe ns ab i l i t y uni f o r m l y o b t a i n s wh e nth ee m p l o ye e i s r e quir e d t o l ive o n t he porti on of t h e em pl oyer’ s prem i ses w h ere t h e ac c i de nth a p p e n s ”. D oe , 445 A
. 2d at43 (c i t i ng 1A A RT HUR L AR SO N , L AR SO N ’ S W ORK ERS C OMPE NSAT I ON L AW , § 2 4 .3 0 a t 5 -1 8 3 (1 9 7 9 )) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). N ee dl es s t o s ay, an “ ac c i d ent” i s notati ss ue her e. I n any eve nt , as di sc us s e d, t he s c o pe o f e m pl o ym e nt m ay be m o r e br o ad l y c o ns t r ue d unde r a w ork e rs ’com pen sati on provi si on t h an w h en i n t erpret i n g an arbi t rat i on p r o v is io n . E v e n w ith in th e co n te x t o f w o r k e r s ’co m p e n s a tio n , h o w e v e r , sim p ly l ivi ng i n em pl oye r - pro vi ded housi ng doe s notm ean an i nj ury oc c urr i ng i n t hat h o u s in gn e c e s s a r ilya r is e s “o u t o f a n din th e co u r s e o f e m p lo y m e n t”
. O bviousl y, chan ges i n t h i s area o f t h e l aw ha ve occurred i n t h e 30 yea rs s i nc e t he 1 97 9 e di t i o n o f t he a bo ve - r e fe r e nc e d a ut ho r i t y w hi c h D oeparap h rases.N o. 08- 20380

18 Arec en tedi t i on su m m ari zes the current stat e of the law w i t h rega rd t o w orkers’ com pen sati on f

or r esi den t
- em pl oyees as f ol l ow s: Inju r ie s to e m p lo y e e s r e q u ir e d to liv e o n th e p r e m is e s a r e g e n e r a lly com pe ns ab l e if

o ne o f t he t w o f

o l l o w i ng fe at ur e s i s pr e s e nt : e i t h er t h e cl ai m an tw as co n tin u o u sly on ca ll , or t h e source of i nj u ry w as a r i s k di s t i nc t l

yas s o c i at e d wi t h t hec o ndi t i o ns unde rw hi c h t he claim an tl i vedb e c aus e o f t he re quir e m e nto f r e m ai ni ng o n t he prem i ses. 2 A RT HUR L AR SO N & L EX . K. L AR SO N , L AR SO N ’ S W ORKE RS ’ C OMPE NSAT I ON L AW , § 2 4 .0 1 , 2 4 -0 2 (2 0 0 9 ) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). C on cerni n g t h e f

i rstof t h e t w o features, Jon es w as not c on t i n u ou sl y on c a ll. S h e w a s o ff-d u tya t t h e tim e o f th e in c id e n t. A s f or th e se con dfea tu re (ri sk disti n ctl y a sso ci a te d) , cou rts h a ve h eld th a t, for w ork ers’com p en sa ti on pu rp ose s, an i nj u ryw a s n ot cau sa l l y re l a tedto e m pl o ym e nti f

t hi s a s pe c to f

t he c l ai m w as no ts at i s f i e d. Fo re xa m pl e , i n L i t t les v. O sce ola Farm s Co. , 5 77 S o. 2 d 657 (Fla. D i st . C t . A pp . 199 1) , t h e courtden i ed deat h b e ne f

i t s t o a n e m pl o ye e ’ s w i do w b e c aus e i tf o und t he e m pl o ye e ’ s de at h, w hi c h oc c urr ed w hen he w as fat al l y s t abbed by t he w om an w i t h w hom he had dev el oped an am orous rel atio n shi p w h i l e rec overi n g at a m edi calfaci l i t y f rom o n- t he

-j o b i nj ur i e s , r e s ul t e d f r o m a n e ve ntt hatw as “ pur e l y pe r s o nalt o t he em pl oye e” , and w as “ not a r i sk ‘ di st i nct l y as so c i at ed’ w i t h hi s st ay att he m edi c al fa c ility ”. Id
. at658 ( quot i ng Mecc a Farm s , I nc . v . Es

pi no , 414 So. 2d 572 , 574 (F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 1 9 8 2 )). O f course, H al l ibu rt on /K B R does not c on t en d that t h e source of Jon es’ i nj u ry–the a ll e g e dg a n g -ra p e –is arisk “d istin ctlya ss o cia te dw ith th e co n d iti on s” un d erw hi c h she l ived. To m ake s uch a c ont ent i on w oul d ar guabl y m ean t hat H al l ibu rt on /K B R f

oresaw t h e possibi l i tyo f t h i s oc curri n g; i f

itha d consi dered t he al l eged i nci denta “ di st i nctr i sk” , H al l iburt on/K B R ar guabl y w oul d have i m m edi at ely hee ded Jo nes ’r eques t t o b e pl ac ed i n a pr ivat e s l ee pi ng fac i l i t y, in s te a do f ab a r r a c k s w h e r e th e ra tio o f m e n to w o m e n w a s 2 0 to o n e .N o. 08- 20380

19 J o n e s wa s n o t o n c a l l a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a l l e g e d i n c i d e n t , n o r wa s t he i n ci den ta “ ri sk dis t i n ct l y associ ated w i t h t h e condit i o n s” u n der w h i ch Jon es l ive d
. A s su ch , Jo n e s ’l ivin g inem p l oy er-p rov i d ed ba rra ck s i s u n a va i l i n g to H al l ibur t o n/K BR ’ s c o nt e nt i o n t hatth ei n c i d e ntw as “ r e l at e d t o ” he re m pl o ym e nt f or arbi t rat i on pu rposes. d. T h e one consen sus em ergi n g f rom t h i s ana l ysi s i s t h at iti s fact
- speci f i c, an d concern s an i ssue abou tw h i ch courts di sagree. W h e n d eci di n g w h et h er a c l ai m fal l s w i t hi n t he s c ope of an arbi t r at i on agr ee m ent , c our t s “ f oc us o n fac t ual a l l eg a ti on s i n the com p l a in t r a th e rtha n the l eg a lcau ses of a cti on ass erted ”. W a steM g m t. , In c. v. R es id u o s In d u str ia les Mu ltiqu im , S. A. d eC. V. , 372 F
. 3d 33 9, 3 44 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 4) ( quo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)
. H e r e , t he al l egat i ons ar e a s f ol l ow s: ( 1 ) Jo n es w as s exual l y as sa ul t ed bys eve r al H al l ibu rt on /K B R em pl oyees i n her bedroom , af t er- h ou rs , ( 2) w h i l e she w as offd u ty , ( 3 ) fo l l o w i n ga s o c i a lg a t h e r i n go u t s i d e o f h e rb a r r a c k s , ( 4 ) w h i c h w a s s o me di st an ce f

rom w h e re sh e w o rk e d , (5 ) atw h ich so cia l ga th e rin gse v e ra l co-w orkers hadb e e n dr i nki ng (w hi c h, not ab l y, att he t i m e w as only al l o w e d i n “ no n- w o r k” sp a ce s). O f f urt hernot e, t he r ec or d i s uncl ear r egar di ng bot h how f r ee Jo nes w as t o t raveli n t h e G reen Z on e an d w h et h e r n on - H al l ibu rt on em pl oyees w ere al l ow ed i n C am p H ope, w h ere t h e all e g e d in ci den tocc u rred. I f Jon es w as not r es t r i c t ed t o Cam p H om e, but w as abl e t o t r avel i n t he w i der G r ee n Zone ar ea, H al l ibur t o n’ s c o nt e nt i o n t hatt he na t ur e o f he rem pl o ym e ntw as pe r va s ive a nd a ll-e n c o m p a s s in g , su c h th a t m o s t a s p e c ts o f h e r life w e r e “r e la te dto ” it , w o u ld be w e ak e ne d. The G r e e n Zone hous e d a m ul t i t ude of civil i an w o r ke r s i n aw i de ran ge of occ u pa t i on s, an d w as t h e sit u s of m an y potenti alrec reat i on alan d other s o c ia l o u tle ts th a t a r g u a b lyco u ldn o t b e s a idto re la te to J o n e s ’e m p lo y m e n t.N o. 08- 20380

20 M oreover, i f

non - H al l ibu rt on /K B R em pl o y e e s w ere al l ow ed i n t h e area w her e t he al l ege d as sa ul toc c urr ed, and H al l iburt on/K B R e m pl oye es had a s s a u lte ds u c h a n o n -e m p lo y e e , t h a t p e r s o n o b v io u s lyw o u ldh a v e a n a c tio n a b le cl ai m . T h at Jon es w as t h e vi ct i m i n t h e al l egedassault , an d that she ha pp en ed t o b e ac o- w or ker of

t he al l ege d per pet r at or s, s houl d not , and doe s not , c hange th e ca lc u lu s . In so n oti n g, w e d o n ot m a k e a statem en t on Jo n es’f ree d om of m ov em en t, ort hat of non- em pl oye es of H al l iburt on/K B R , w i t hi n t he G r ee n Zone. Th i s w as bot h un c l earf

r om t he r ec or d and di sput ed by c ounse li n t he br i ef i ng and ator al argu m en t . Th e fact s t h at c an be def i n i t ivel y gl ean ed f

rom th e record are s uf f i c i e ntt o s upp o r to urde c i s i o n; t he a bo ve s upp o s i t i o ns , ho w e ve r , pr o vi de f u rt h er reason w h y w h at al l eged l y occurred w ou l d not be “ rel ated to ” Jon es’ em pl oym en t , w ere t h e rec ord m ore c l ear. U ndert hes e ci rcu m st ance s, t he o ut erl i m i t s of t he “r el at ed t o” l anguage o f t h e a rb i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n h a v e b e e n t e s t e d , a n d b r e a c h e d
. Ha l l ib u r t o n /KBR es s e n tia llyask s th i s cou rt t o rea dthe arb i tration pr ov i sion so b roa d l y a s to e n c o m p a s s a n yc la im r e la t e dto J o n e s ’ employe r , or an y i n ci den tt h at hap pen ed dur i ng he re mploy m e nt , b u ttha tis n otthe l an gu age of the contract . W e do n ot h ol d that, as a m att er of l aw , sexua l

- assau l tal l egati on s ca n n e v e r “rel ate t o” som eon e’ s em pl oym en t . For t h i s ac tion , how ever, Jon es’al l egati on s do not

“ t ou ch m at t e r s ” r e l at e d t o he re m pl o ym e nt , l e ta l o ne ha ve a“ s i gnif i c ant r e la tio n s h ip ” t o h e re m p lo y m e n t c o n tr a c t. 2. H aving deci ded t h at Jones’cl ai m s are n ot“ rel ated t o” her em pl oym en tf or pur po s e s o f

t he a rbit r at i o n c l aus e , a ti s s ue i s H al l ibu rt on/K BR ’ s s e c o nd c o nt e nt i o n r e ga r di ng t he l ang uag e i n t hatcl aus e : Jo ne s ’cl ai m s fal lw i t hi n t he scope of t h e a rbi t rat i on a greem en tb ecau se the D R P –i n corporat ed by reference i nt o J ones ’em p l oym entc ont r ac t–def i ned c ove r ed di sput es ev en m or e b r oadly,N o. 08- 20380

21 speci f i cal l y i n cl u di n g as an exam pl e of an arbi t rabl e cl ai m “ an y persona li nj u ry al l eged l y i n curredi n or ab ou tt h e w orkplace”. (E m p h a sis a d d ed
. ) Itass erts th a t, at t h e v ery l east, the al l egedp ersonalinj u ry (rape), w h i ch al l eged l y t ook p l ace in J o n e s ’b a r r a c k s b e d r o o m , o c c u r r e d“in o ra b o u t t h e w o r k p la c e ”. Jon es c ou n t ers: H alliburt o n/K BR i s r ai si n g t h e “ in o r a b o u t t h e w orkp l ace” la n g u a g e fo rth e fir s t t im e o n a p p e a l; h e re m p lo y m e n t c o n tr a c t in c lu d e s o n ly p e r s o n a l inju r ie s “a r is in gin t h e w o r k p la c e ”. H a llib u r to n/K B R r e p lie s t h a t it d id ra i se th is bro a dD R P l a n gu a ge i n distri ct cou rt w h en i t citedthe D R P i n i ts m o t i o n t o c o m pe la rbit r at i o n. Reg ar dl e s s o f

w he t her w e a r e i nt e r pr e t i ng “ i n” , o r“i n o ra bo ut” , t he w orkp l ace, nei t h er phrase en com pa sses Jon es’cl ai m s. A s n o te d , t h e di st ri ct c our tc onc l uded, and w e a gr ee , t hat“ Pl ai nt i f f ’ s bedr oo m s h ou l d [ not] be consi dered the w orkp l ace, even t h ou gh her hou si n gw a s p rovi ded by h er e m p lo y e r”. Jon es , 200 8 W L 201 946 3, at *10. H al l ibu rt on /K B R provi ded Jon es’ h o u s in g , a n dJ o n e s d idn o t p a y r e n t to liv e th e r e . N o n e th e le s s , ju s t a s w e h e ld t h at t h e i n ci den tw as not “rel ated t o” h er em pl oym en tf or purp oses of

arbi t rat i on becau se s h e l ivedi n em pl oyer- provi ded h ou si n g, w e al so hol d that t h i s factdoes n o t e s ta b lis h th e in c id e n t o c c u r r e d“in o ra b o u t t h e w o r k p la c e ”. A s t h e di st ri ctcou rtn ot ed, the barracks w ere s om e di st an ce f rom w h ere Jon es w orked , a n d t h ere i s n o indic ati on J on es or a n yon e els e p erf orm ed an y j ob d u t i e s a tt h e b a r r a c k s . Fu r t h e r , a s s t a t e di n t h e a f f i d a v i to f

aHa l l ib u r t o n /KBR H um an R es our c es s uper vi so r i n I r aq: pri or t o t he i nci dent at i ss ue, dr i nki ng w as a l l o we d i n o f

f

- d u t y h o u r s a nd n on - w ork spaces
. A s noted, Jon es and her cow o r ke r s ha d b e e n dr i nki ng i n t he publ i c sp ac e out s i de o f he rb ar r ac ks b e f

o r e t he al l egedsexua lassault
. For pu rp o se s of deci di n g t h e sc ope of t h e arbi t rat i on pr o v i s i o n , t h i s i s v e r yp e r s u a s iv e t h a tHa l l ib u r t o n /KBR d i dn o tc o n s i d e rt he b a rra ck s to be a “w ork p l a ce”.N o. 08- 20380

22 C. In t h e alternative, Jon es c on t en ds t h at, shou l d h er c l ai m s be deem ed arbi t rabl e, H al l ibu rt on /K B R cann oti n vok e equ i t able pri n ci pl es t o enfor ce sp ecif i c p erform a n ce of the arb i tration cl a u se b eca u se ith a s “u n cl ea n h a n d s”. Specif i c al l y, Jo nes al l ege s: H al l iburt on/ K B R w as aw ar e o f num er ous s exual a s s a u l ts pe rp etra tedbyi ts em p l oy ee s on w om en i n Iraq , bu t did n ot u se th is kn ow l edg e t ode t e rf

ur the ra s s ault s; i ti m ped ed Jon es’abi l i t y t o procure evi den ce by h old in gher i n com m u n i cado aft er t h e i n ci den t ; an d i tusedt h e arbi t rat i on cl au se t o shi el d i t sel f f rom l i abili t y an d d am ages. T h e di st ri ctcourt d isa g reed w i t h Jon es on t h i s poi n t , becau se her al l e ga t i o ns r e ga r di ng H al l ibur t o n/ K BR ’ s unc l e an hand s di d no ta ddr e s s t he en f orcem e n t o f the arbi t rat i on agreem en ti t sel f, bu tw en tt o t h e m eri t s of her f r aud ul e nt
- i nduc e m e ntc l ai m . I n any e ve nt , be c aus e w e hol d t he f o urc l ai m s t he di st rictcourtdeem ed n on - arbi t rabl e fal loutsi de the scope of t h e arbi t rat i on provi si on , w e need not r each t h i s i ssue. III. A l t h ou gh t h e D i ssent’ s observati on at 3 of t h e “i n ef

f i ci en [ cy] of a dju d ic a [tio n ] [o f] th e s e cla im s b e fo r e d iffe r e n t fo r a ” m a yb e co r r e c t, it is una v o i d a b l e b e c a u s e , b a s e d o n t h i s r e c o r d , a n d f o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d, fo ur c l ai m s ar e no tw i t hi n t he sc ope of the arbi t r at i on c l ause . Acc or di ngl y, t he deni al in p a r to f th e m o tio n to co m p e l a rb itr a tio n is A F F IR M E D , a n dth is m a tt e ris R E M A N D E D to d is tr ic t c o u r t fo rfu r th e rp r o c e e d in g s co n s is te n t w ith th is o pi ni o n. AF F I RMED a n dR EMANDE D.N o. 08- 20380

23 D eM O SS , C i r c ui tJudge, D i ss ent i ng:
I r e s p e c t fu ll yd is s e n tfr o m t h e m ajo r it y ’s o p in io n o n t h e b a s is th a tJ o n e s ’s tort cl a i m s ar e related to h er em p l oy m en t. T h e a rb i t r a t i o n c l a u s e s t a t e s , i n r e l e v a n tp a r t , t h a t“ a n ya n da l lc l a i ms [Jo ne s ] m i ghtha ve a ga i ns tt he c o m pa ny rel ated t o [he r] e m pl o ym e nt. . . a nd
a n y a n dallpe rson a li nj u rycla im s a r is i n g inthe w ork p l a ce” ar e su bj ect to bi n di n g arbi t rat i on . A rbi t rat i on cl au ses pu rport i n g t o cover al ld i spu t es “rel ated t o ” an e m pl o ye e ’ s e m pl o ym e nta r e i nt e r pr e t e d t o c o ve r“ al ldi s put e s b e t w e e n t he pa rt i es hav i n g a si gn i f i can t rel ati on shi p t o t h e contr actregardl ess of t h e l abel
a tt a c h e d to th e d is p u te .” Pers . S ec. & S afe ty Sys. In c. v. Mot orola Inc. , 297 F. 3d 388, 393 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) ( q u ota ti on o m i t t ed)
. W hen fac ed w i t h suc h a br oad arbi t rat i on cl au se “ i ti s onl y n ecess ary t h at t h e di spu t e ‘ t ou ch’m att ers covered b yth e [c o n tr a c t ] t o b e a rb itr a b le .” Penn zoi lExplorati on & Prod. Co. v. R am co Ener gyLt d. , 1 39 F
. 3d 1 061 , 1 068 (5t h C i r. 1 998 )
. T h i s cou rtha s hel d that w h en t he s c o pe o f an arbit r at i o n c l aus e “ i s fair l y de ba t ab l e o rr e as o nab l y i n do ubt , t he
cou rt sh ou l dde ci d e th e q u estion of c o n s tr u c ti on i n fa vo r of arb i tration
. ” In re Ho r n b e c k Of

f s h o r e(1 9 8 4

)Co r p. , 9 8 1 F
. 2d 752 , 755 ( 5th C i r. 199 3) ( qu ot ati on
o m itt e d ); se e a lso B a n c O n e A cc ep ta n ceCo rp . v . Hill , 367 F
. 3d 426 , 429 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (c o u r t s “ mu s tr e s o lv e a l la mb i g u i t i e s i n fa v o ro f a rb i t r a t i o n ” )
. I n m yv i e w, t h e i ssue bef

ore t h i s c ou rti s debatable an d theref ore s h ou l d be r esolvedi n favor
o f a rbit r at i o n.N o. 08- 20380

24 Af i n d i n gt h a tJ o n e s ’ s c l a i ms a r e s u bj e c tt o a rb i t r a t i o n d o e s n o t , i n my opi n i on , requi re arbi t rat i on m erely becau se t h ere i s an em pl oyer- em pl oyee relati on sh ip ; no r d oe s su ch a fi n d i n g re su l t i n the re b ein g n o “ou ter l i m i t” to
w hati s r e l at e d t o J o ne s ’ s e m pl o ym e nt . U nde rt he pa r t i c ul arfac t s a nd ci rcum st an ces of

t h i s c ase, I w ou l d f

i n d t h at t h e ou t er l i m i t s of t h e “ rel ated t o” l ang uag e a re n otexc e e de d when t he a l l e ge d r ap e a nd fal s e i m pr i s o nm e nt
oc c urr ed on c om pany- ow ned bar r ac ks l oc at ed i n a w ar zo ne an d Jo n es w as
r e quir e d t o r e s i de i n t he b ar r ac ks a s ac on di t i o n o f he re m pl o ym e nt . I f t he att acks h ad occ u rred i n t h e G reen Z on e at l arge, or at a l ocat i o n w h ere Jones
w as not r equ ire d to b e, her cl ai m s w ou l d argu ably not be rel ated t o her
em p l oy m en t. O t herc our t s c ons t r ui ng a s ubst ant i al l y s i m i l ararbi t r at i on c l ause have f ou n d t h ese cl ai m s t o be “ rel ated t o” t h e pl ai n t i f f ’ s em pl oym en tan d thu s s u bj ect t o a rbit r at i o n. I n B arker v. Hall i bu rt on Co. , 541 F
. Supp. 2d 879 , 887 ( S. D
. Tex. 200 8) , w h i ch i n volvedsi m i l ar fact s an d an i den t i calarbi t rat i on cl au se, t h e court he l d t hat“ o ve rseas em pl o ye e s do no tha ve b r i ghtl i ne s b e t w e e n t he i rw o r ki ng t i m e a nd t hei rl ei sur e t i m e. Long e st abl i she d Fi f t h C i r c ui tpr ec ede nthol ds t hat per so nala c t iv i t i e s o f as o c i a lo rr e c r e a t i o na ln a t ur e m us tb e c o ns i d e r e das i n ci d en t t o th e ov erse a s em p l o y m e n t rel a ti on sh i p . ” Id
. a t8 87
- 88 ( quo t at i o ns
om i t t ed) (c i t i ng O ’

K eef f e v. Pan A m . A i rw ays, I n c. , 338 F .2d 3 1 9 , 3 22 (5t h C i r. 196 4) )
. In th e se c i rcum st an ces, barracks coul d be con si dered p artof t h e w orkN o. 08- 20380

25 e n v ir o n m e n t. S eeid
. at 888
. A s t h e m aj ori t y poi n t s out, t h e O ’ K eeffec our tw as
a n a l yz i n g th e cou rse a n dscop e of em p lo y m en t un d er th e D efen se B a ses A ct,
w hi c h pr o vi de s w o r ke r ’ s c o m pe ns at i o n f o ro ve r s e as e m pl oyee s . I n O ’ Lear y v . B row n - Pacif

i c- Maxon , I

n c. , 340 U
. S
. 504 , 506 ( 195 1) , t h e Su prem e C ou rtnoted t h at w orker’ s co m p en sati on w as “ n otconf i n ed bycom m on - l aw concepti on s of
sc ope of

em pl oym en t. ” W h i l e Iagr ee w i t h t he m aj or i t y t hatt he l iber al constr u ct i on of

sc ope of em pl oym en tf

or purp oses of

w orker’ s c om pe ns ati o n i s not
nec es sa r i l y t he s am e s t andard t o b e a ppl i ed w hen co nst r ui ng t he t er m s of an
arbit r at i o n agr e e m e nt , I do f i nd i tper s uas ive w he n t he a rbit r at i o n a gr e e m e nt
c o n ta in s s im ila rla n g u a g e . T h u s , I a g r e e w ith t h e h o ld in go f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in B a rk er th a t u n d e r th e se circ u m sta n ce s, th e cla im s a re re la te dto a p la in tiff’s
e m p lo y m e n t. 5 4 1 F . S u p p . 2 da t 8 8 7 -8 8 ; seea lso O ravetz v. Hall i bu rt on Co. , N o. 7- 202 85-C IV

- Z L O C H ( S
. D
. F l a. Ju l y 24, 200 7) (cl ai m s of sexua lassaultt h at t ook p la c e a tp la i n t i f

f’s e m p lo y e rp r o v id e dh o u s in gw e r e r e la t e dto p la in t if f’s
e m p lo y m e n t u n d e ras im ila r“r e la te dto ” a rb itr a tio n cla u s e ); Un i t ed S t ate s ex re l McB ri d e v. Hall i bu rt on Co
. , 2007 W L 1954441, at*5 (D
. D
. C
. Jul y 5, 2007) (pl ai n t i f f ’ s c l ai m s f

or fal se i m pri sonm en tw ere s u bj ectto arbi t rat i on un der
s im ila r“r e la te dto ” a rb itr a tio n cla u s e ).N o. 08- 20380

Ials o note th at Jonesa ssert s th at Hallib urton/KBRi s vic ariou slyliab lef orherclaim s 1 of sexu al assault, false imprisonment, II ED, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of e mp loyee s. I norderto succ ee d onth es e cl aim s onath eoryof vic ariou s liab ility , J onesmu st show that the indivi dualdefendants were acting within the scope of their employment. Jones and the indivi dual defen dant s were all employees of Halliburton/KBR, required to live in the barracks, and were socializing in the barracks while off-duty . Although vicarious liabilityis base d onagencylaw and the interpretationof an arb itrationagreement i s ba sed oncontract law, Icannot seehow Jones cansuccessfully distinguish the district court’s hol ding th at the incident was not related to Jone s’s employme nt but , un der the same circu mstance s, was withinth e scop e of

th e in dividu al defen dants ’ employme nt. 26 F i n al l y, Jon es’ s c l ai m s are i n extr i cabl y conn ect ed because t h ey arose f rom th e sa m e incide n t an dthe ev id e n c e o f th e claim s w i l ln ece ssa ri l y o ve rl a p . It
se em s i nef

f i c i entt o a dj udi c at e t hes e c l ai m s bef or e dif fer entf or a. 1 F o rth e s e re a s o n s , I r e s p e c tfu llyD IS S E N T fr o m th e m ajo r ity ’ s o p in io n .