Opinion ID: 77119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dispute Resolution Policy

Text: 2 Each of the plaintiffs is a current or former employee of Gulfstream and was employed at Gulfstream's Savannah, Georgia, facility during the relevant period from the summer of 2002 until the spring of 2003. During the summer of 2002, Gulfstream adopted the DRP to serve as its exclusive method for resolving covered employment-related disputes between itself and its employees. 3 On or about July 15, 2002, Gulfstream mailed to all of the workers employed at its Savannah facility a copy of the DRP, an explanatory cover letter, and a question-and-answer form. An outside company mailed the documents by first-class mail to the employee addresses on file with Gulfstream's human resources department. 1 In addition, Gulfstream placed the DRP and accompanying documents on the company intranet accessible by the plaintiffs. Gulfstream also distributed the DRP electronically through the Management Newsletter emailed to approximately 1,000 employees. Gulfstream also posted notices relating to the DRP's implementation, but not the DRP itself, on thirteen bulletin boards throughout the Savannah facility. 4 The explanatory cover letter, mailed with the DRP on July 15, 2002, read in part as follows: The DRP will become the exclusive procedure to resolve covered workplace disputes — so you should carefully read the enclosed brochure. This policy, which will become effective on August 1, 2002, will be a condition of continued employment. All covered claims will be subject to this DRP at that time. (Emphasis added.) 5 In addition, the DRP itself included the following clause explaining that the DRP was a contract and that an employee's continuation of employment constituted acceptance: 6 Acceptance/No Change in Terms of Employment The submission of an application, acceptance of employment or the continuation of employment by an individual shall be deemed to be acceptance of the DRP. No signature shall be required for the policy to be applicable. The mutual obligations set forth in this DRP shall constitute a contract between the Employee and the Company but shall not change an Employee's at-will relationship or any term of any other contract or agreement between the Company and Employee. This Policy shall constitute the entire agreement between the Employee and Company for the resolution of Covered Claims. 7 The DRP established a four-level dispute-resolution process, as follows: Level One: Human Resources Review; Level Two: Management Panel Review; Level Three: Mediation; Level Four: Arbitration. The DRP explained how each level would work and set forth specific discovery rules. 8 The DRP also contained a time-based waiver applicable to employees. Specifically, the DRP provided that an employee's failure to submit a covered claim to the next level within thirty days of the final determination at a given level would waive the employee's rights to pursue the covered claim. While an employee was required to proceed through each level sequentially, the DRP specified that Gulfstream may elect to bypass one or more steps prior to arbitration for disputes with applicants for employment, with former employees, or if the Company is the initiating party. In addition, no time-based waiver applied to Gulfstream under the DRP. 9 The DRP defined covered claims as employment-related claims. . . of a legal right, obligation or entitlement regarding or arising from the employment relationship. The DRP further provided that Covered Claims include, but are not limited to, the following: 10
11 2. Employment discrimination and harassment claims, based on, for example, age, race, sex, religion, national origin, veteran status, citizenship, disability or other characteristic protected by law; Retaliation claims for legally protected activity, and/or for whistleblowing; 12 3. Claims relating to state or federal Family and Medical Leave Acts; 13 4. Claims relating to workplace accommodation due to physical or mental disabilities; 14 5. Tort claims, intentional torts, negligence, defamation, invasion of privacy, infliction or [sic] emotional distress, etc.; 15 6. Claims of violation of public policy; and 16 7. Claims based on express or implied contracts. 17 The DRP specifically excluded the following claims from its provisions: Excluded Claims 18 Claims excluded from the DRP are the following: 19 1. Claims for benefits under a Company benefit plan, including those covered by Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); 20
21
22 4. Claims covered under the National Labor Relations Act; 5. Claims against the Company or a present or former Employee which do not have any relationship to the Employee's work or relationship to the Company; 23 6. Claims which are personal in nature and do not involve a claim of a legal right, obligation or entitlement. 24 The DRP further provided that for certain limited claims, either the employee or Gulfstream may . . . apply to any court of competent jurisdiction and seek interim provisional, injunctive, or other equitable relief until the arbitration award is rendered or the Covered Claim is otherwise resolved. 2 None of the claims in this case falls within this provision. 25 The DRP explicitly provided that it was the sole and exclusive forum and remedy for all Covered Claims. It further provided that the employee and Gulfstream waived any right to jury trial, as follows: The Employee and Company agree and hereby waive any right to jury trial for any Covered Claim. 26 Finally, the DRP provided that Gulfstream retained the right to modify or terminate the DRP on thirty days' written notice and that the policy in effect at the time a claim was received would govern the process by which the claim was determined. 27 In March 2003, Gulfstream modified certain terms of the DRP and noticed and distributed it by the same methods as the original version. The terms of the modified DRP were substantially similar. However, the revised DRP provided that the employee agreed that no Covered Claim may be brought as a class or collective action under the DRP. 3 The revised DRP also stated that the employee's continued employment would constitute acceptance. The effective date of the modification was April 10, 2003, and each of the plaintiffs was employed when notice of the modification to the DRP was given and on the effective date.