*

The Hon. John G. Heyburn, II, United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky,

sitting by designation. 

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 06a0039n.06

Filed: January 13, 2006

04-2478

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

WENDY McMULLEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

MEIJER, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: DAUGHTREY and COLE, Circuit Judges, and HEYBURN,*

 District Judge.

PER CURIAM. This case is before us on appeal for the second time, following a

remand to the district court to determine whether an invalid arbitrator-selection clause was

severable from the remainder of an agreement to arbitrate disputes concerning defendant

Meijer’s termination of plaintiff Wendy McMullen’s employment. The district court ruled that

the offending provision was severable from the remainder of the agreement. Faced then

with an arbitration agreement without a specified method of selecting an arbitrator, the

district court concluded that the parties should follow the selection provisions contained in

the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The plaintiff contests both these

determinations, maintaining that our invalidation of the arbitrator-selection provision
04-2478

McMullen v. Meijer, Inc.

- 2 -

stripped the agreement of such an essential element that the entire agreement to arbitrate

disputes must be held to be a nullity. For the reasons set out below, we agree with the

district court that the arbitrator-selection provision of the agreement was indeed severable

from the remainder of the agreement and that the arbitrator should be selected under the

rules of the American Arbitration Association. We therefore affirm the judgment entered

below. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The facts underlying this dispute were adequately set forth in our prior opinion in

McMullen v. Meijer, Inc., 355 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2004):

In 1989, Meijer hired McMullen as a store detective at its store in Flint,

Michigan. McMullen faced discipline in 1998 for an incident involving her

pursuit and confrontation of a juvenile shoplifter in the store parking lot.

Meijer offered McMullen a choice between demotion with a 33% decrease in

salary, or outright termination. McMullen chose termination and decided to

challenge her discipline through Meijer’s termination appeal procedure (TAP).

The terms of the TAP establish a two-step procedure requiring binding

arbitration of all disputes arising out of termination of employment. The TAP

expressly incorporates the Employment Dispute Resolution Rules of the

American Arbitration Association (AAA). Further, the TAP specifically asserts

that:

This procedure is intended to be the sole and exclusive remedy

and forum for all claims arising out of or relating to an eligible

team member’s termination from employment.

The decision and award of the arbitrator is final and binding

between the parties as to all claims arising out of or relating to

an [sic] team member’s termination from employment which

were or could have been raised at any step in this procedure
04-2478

McMullen v. Meijer, Inc.

- 3 -

and judgment may be entered on the award in any circuit court

or other court of competent jurisdiction.

Contemporaneous to hiring McMullen, Meijer had provided her with

a copy of an employee handbook describing both the TAP and the

company’s policy of terminating employees only with “just cause.” McMullen

had then signed a form acknowledging receipt of the handbook and

assenting to the company’s policies and procedures.

Upon instituting termination appeal proceedings, McMullen argued that

her discharge had been motivated by an intent to discriminate against her on

the basis of her gender. Meijer denied her appeal internally and informed her

that, “[i]f you would like to contest the results of this further review, you must

request an arbitration hearing . . . .” Subsequently, McMullen signed and

filed the necessary paperwork to begin the arbitral process.

Once an arbitration hearing is requested, the TAP grants Meijer the

right to unilaterally select a pool of at least five potential arbitrators, each of

whom must be: (1) an attorney, (2) unemployed by and unaffiliated with the

company, (3) generally recognized as a neutral and experienced labor and

employment arbitrator, and (4) listed on the rosters of the Federal Mediation

and Conciliation Service (FMCS) or the AAA, as well as other arbitration

rosters. Then, counsel for the company and the aggrieved employee

mutually select an arbitrator from that pool by alternatively [sic] striking

names until only one remains. On August 20, 1998, counsel for McMullen

and Meijer, following this procedure, selected arbitrator William Daniel to hear

McMullen’s appeal.

Several months later, and only one day prior to the scheduled date of

the arbitration hearing, McMullen filed this declaratory judgment action in

state court challenging the fairness of the TAP’s arbitrator-selection process.

Asserting federal question jurisdiction, Meijer removed the action to the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Id. at 487-88.

Ultimately, the district court granted summary judgment to Meijer and issued an

order compelling McMullen to arbitrate her dispute. The plaintiff appealed that ruling to this

court, however, and we undertook to address the central issue in the case at that time –
04-2478

McMullen v. Meijer, Inc.

- 4 -

“whether Meijer’s exclusive control over the pool of potential arbitrators renders the arbitral

forum so fundamentally unfair as to prevent McMullen from effectively vindicating her

statutory rights, thereby precluding enforcement of the pre-dispute agreement to arbitrate

the statutory claims.” Id. at 490. In concluding “that Meijer’s TAP is not an effective

substitute for a judicial forum,” we reasoned that “McMullen’s Title VII claims are [thus] not

subject to the TAP arbitrator-selection provision.” Id. at 494. Nevertheless, we remanded

the case to the district court to resolve the question “whether Meijer’s TAP is thus

unenforceable in its entirety or whether the selection procedure can be severed and

replaced with an appropriate equitable process.” Id.

Upon remand, the district judge determined that Meijer’s arbitrator-selection

procedure could be severed from the remainder of the agreement and that the contract

would nevertheless continue to give effect to the parties’ intent to utilize arbitration as the

exclusive method of resolving disputes arising from an employee’s termination from

employment. Indeed, according to the district court’s oral ruling, “the intent of the parties

was always to have arbitration and not judicial resolution of any dispute.” Additionally, the

district judge noted that “the federal policy favoring arbitration has been preeminent in labor

matters” for decades and that “[f]ederal policy overwhelming[ly] supports arbitration of any

dispute concerning discharge or employment conditions.” 

Faced with an arbitration agreement without direction on how to select an arbitrator,

the district court then turned to the rules of the American Arbitration Association.
04-2478

McMullen v. Meijer, Inc.

- 5 -

Recognizing Rule 9's description of a selection process to be used “[i]f the parties have not

appointed an arbitrator and have not provided any other method of appointment,” the court

instructed the parties “to choose an arbitrator through the American Arbitration

Association.” 

DISCUSSION

The arbitration procedure at issue in this litigation is contained in Meijer’s policy and

procedure manual and consists of 18 sections, some general and aspirational, others

detailed and specific. The basic role of arbitration in the dispute resolution process is set

out in relevant portions of Sections A and R of the policy, as follows:

A. Purpose and Scope

This procedure has been established to provide an exclusive,

final and binding method for the company and any eligible

team member to resolve all claims, controversies, disputes or

complaints arising out of or relating to the team member’s

termination from employment, including any claims or

complaints based on federal, state or local law. In the event a

team member who is eligible to use this procedure has a

complaint about his or her termination from employment, it will

be resolved in accordance with this procedure.

* * * * *

R. Exclusive Remedy, Effect of Arbitration and Condition Precedent

This procedure is intended to be the sole and exclusive remedy

and forum for all claims arising out of or relating to an eligible

team member’s termination from employment.

The decision and award of the arbitrator is final and binding

between the parties as to all claims arising out of or relating to

an [sic] team member’s termination from employment which
04-2478

McMullen v. Meijer, Inc.

- 6 -

were or could have been raised at any step in this procedure

and judgment may be entered on the award in any circuit court

or other court of competent jurisdiction.

In the event a court of competent jurisdiction should determine

that this procedure is not the sole and exclusive remedy and

forum and/or that the decision and award of the arbitrator, if

any, is not final and binding between the parties as to some or

all of the team member’s claims, it is intended that exhaustion

of this procedure be a condition precedent to the institution or

maintenance of any legal, equitable, administrative, or other

formal proceeding by an eligible team member for all claims

arising out of or relating to the team member’s termination from

employment.

(Emphasis added.)

Additionally, Section H of the policy outlines the process for selecting the person to

serve as arbitrator of the employment dispute. That section provides:

Upon receiving a notice of election to arbitrate from the team member, the

company will deliver or mail a list of at least five impartial arbitrators to the

team member. The arbitrators on the list shall all be attorneys.

Within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date the list was delivered or

mailed, the team member or the team member’s representative must meet

or confer at a mutually convenient place and time with the company’s

designated representative to choose an arbitrator from the list.

The arbitrator shall be chosen from the arbitrators on the list by alternately

striking names, the team member striking first, until only one name remains.

If the arbitrator chosen cannot serve for any reason, the last arbitrator

stricken on the list shall be designated to hear the case.

It is this provision of the arbitration agreement that we previously found objectionable and

invalidated.
04-2478

McMullen v. Meijer, Inc.

- 7 -

After finding that the arbitrator-selection procedure detailed in Section H of the

agreement vested unwarranted control in Meijer, to the exclusion of the company’s

employees or “team members,” we directed the district court to determine whether the

offending provision could be severed from the remainder of the policy. Not surprisingly,

Meijer contended below that it can and, therefore, that the arbitration proceedings could

continue with an arbitrator chosen by another method. McMullen, however, insisted that

the invalidated section is not severable, that the entire arbitration agreement is thus null

and void, and that she should be allowed to pursue her claims of employment

discrimination in federal court without the necessity of resort to arbitration.

Such a dispute presents a question of law that we review de novo. See Morrison

v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 317 F.3d 646, 674 (6th Cir. 2003) (en banc). In determining

whether a provision of a contract or agreement is severable, we first examine the provisions

of the applicable state law. See id. 

The general contract law of Michigan, the state of residence of both plaintiff

McMullen and defendant Meijer, provides “that the failure of a distinct part of a contract

does not void valid, severable provisions.” Samuel D. Begola Servs., Inc. v. Wild Bros.,

534 N.W.2d 217, 220 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (citing Robinson v. A.Z. Shmina & Sons Co.,

293 N.W.2d 661 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)). In City of Lansing v. Lansing Township, 97

N.W.2d 804, 813 (Mich. 1959), the Michigan Supreme Court stated somewhat

axiomatically:
04-2478

McMullen v. Meijer, Inc.

- 8 -

As a general rule, a contract is entire when, by its terms, nature and

purpose, it contemplates that each and all of its parts are interdependent and

common to one another and to the consideration, and is severable when, in

its nature and purpose, it is susceptible of division and apportionment.

“[W]hen determining whether a contractual provision is severable, it is clear that the primary

consideration is the intention of the parties.” Samuel D. Begola Servs., 534 N.W.2d at 220.

No precise rule can be formulated to judge that intent, however. Instead, the intention of

the parties “must be discovered in each case by considering the language employed and

the subject-matter of the contract.” Stevenson v. Bhds. Mut. Benefit, 19 N.W.2d 494, 497

(Mich. 1945).

Unlike Morrison, this case does not present a straightforward scenario involving an

arbitration agreement with an express severability clause. See Morrison, 317 F.3d at 675.

Both parties to this appeal agree, however, that the absence of such a clause does not

necessarily foreshadow a decision that the arbitrator-selection provision was not severable.

Although “[t]he selection of an arbitrator is clearly at the heart of any arbitration agreement,”

Morrison, 317 F.3d at 679, even a cursory reading of this particular arbitration agreement

reveals the importance that the parties placed upon an arbitral forum for the settlement of

employment disputes. As quoted earlier, arbitration was “intended to be the sole and

exclusive remedy and forum for all claims”; to the extent that a court determines that it is

not, resort to the arbitration process must be considered a condition precedent that must

be exhausted prior to seeking judicial intervention. Without a doubt, therefore, the parties
04-2478

McMullen v. Meijer, Inc.

- 9 -

to this arbitration agreement evidenced their intent that the arbitral process was not to be

sacrificed for other dispute-resolution alternatives.

In addition to the language and structure of the agreement itself, another important

consideration supports the conclusion that the offending provision should be severed and

the remainder of the agreement enforced. Throughout the years, courts have emphasized

the importance of arbitration in the resolution of disagreements between parties in the

employment setting. Indeed, “Supreme Court precedent dictates that we resolve any

doubts as to arbitrability ‘in favor of arbitration.’” Id. at 675 (citing Moses H. Cone Mem.

Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983)). In light of this strong

preference in favor of arbitration, as well as the parties’ expectations that an arbitral forum

would be utilized to resolve employment disputes, we decline to prevent use of the chosen

method of resolution simply because one, easily-remedied problem surfaces.

After determining that the arbitrator-selection provision of the agreement could be

severed, the district judge was faced with the task of determining an alternative means of

choosing an arbitrator that would comport with the remainder of the agreement. Although

the agreement does not specify an alternative method of selecting an arbitrator, a provision

in Section J commits the parties to conduct arbitration “in accordance with the applicable

provisions of the Employment Dispute Resolution Rules of the American Arbitration

Association,” even though it excepts the association from administering the arbitration

process because of the arbitrator-selection provision in Section H. Because the rules of
04-2478

McMullen v. Meijer, Inc.

- 10 -

the American Arbitration Association were otherwise adopted for the conduct of any Meijer

arbitration, however, the district court concluded that the American Arbitration Association

rules governing selection of an arbitrator or arbitration panel should also be followed. In

addition, when, during oral argument, the plaintiff’s attorney was given a choice –

hypothetically – between utilizing the American Arbitration Association rules or having the

district court appoint an arbitrator under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 5, counsel

opted for the former over the latter. In light of these considerations, we see no reason to

disturb the district court’s decision concerning the proper method of selecting an arbitrator

to preside over McMullen’s employment dispute. 

AFFIRMED.