Opinion ID: 77119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs' Lawsuits

Text: 28 On November 17, 2003, the plaintiffs filed two related complaints seeking damages and equitable relief from defendants Gulfstream and its parent company, General Dynamics Corporation (General Dynamics). In Caley, et al. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. and General Dynamics Corp., the plaintiffs' complaint asserted claims on behalf of an estimated class of two hundred workers under the FLSA, charging that the defendants deliberately mischaracterized the plaintiffs as exempt from overtime pay requirements and therefore failed to pay the plaintiffs for hours worked in excess of forty per week. The same counsel filed the complaint in Jackson, et al. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. and General Dynamics Corp. on behalf of an estimated class of one hundred workers, charging the same defendants with ADEA and ERISA violations, asserting other Georgia-law contract claims, and alleging individual claims of race discrimination, a retaliation claim, and a gender discrimination claim under Title VII and an FLSA retaliation claim on behalf of certain plaintiffs. 4 29 In response to the complaints, the defendants filed motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss both actions. On March 10, 2004, General Dynamics (later joined by Gulfstream) moved to treat the Caley and Jackson actions as related. The motion was granted on March 26, 2004. 30 On August 24, 2004, the district court entered an order granting the defendants' motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss. 5 31 The plaintiffs now appeal. This appeal concerns the validity of Gulfstream's DRP, which includes a requirement to arbitrate certain types of employment-related claims, including those asserted by the plaintiffs in these cases.