Opinion ID: 3014207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: employment. Both Wyatt and I agree

Text: to resolve any and all claims, Lloyd worked for more than twelve disputes or controversies arising out years as a boilermaker and pipefitter for of or relating to my application or various contractors at the HOVENSA candidacy for employment, the terms refinery in St. Croix, Virgin Islands. Although the contractors for maintenance 1 According to Lloyd, it was the custom and repairs changed over these years, at the HOVENSA refinery that the former Lloyd remain ed em ployed at the employees of the outgoing contractor HOVENSA refinery. In November 2001, would be offered employment or Lloyd was working for Jacobs/IMC, one of transferred to the incoming contractor, but the contractors at the refinery. At that Wyatt did not adhere to that custom. 2 and conditions of my employment, Rules 17, 18, and 34 with respect to and any claims arising from or confidentiality, AAA Rule 7 with respect relating to the employment to discovery procedure, and the DRA’s relationship exclusively by final and fee-s plitti n g p r o v i s i o n w e r e a ll binding arbitration before a neutral unconscionable and against public policy. arbitrator pursuant to the American Lloyd also requested that the District Court Arbitration Association’s National allow him further discovery based on his Rules for the Resolution of belief that Wyatt’s use of the DRA only in Employment Disputes [(“AAA the Virgin Islands was motivated by bad Rules”)] . . . . This agreement faith or an otherwise improper motive. He extends to disputes with or claims claimed that, if Wyatt had indeed against W ya t t V .I . , I n c., discriminated against Black or Hispanic HOVENSA, L.L.C., and any of their Virgin Islanders through the use of the related or affiliated companies, DRA, then the DRA would be violative of entities, or individuals (as intended federal and Virgin Islands law and third party beneficiaries). unenforceable as a matter of public policy. App. at 37. On November 18, 2002, Wyatt filed a reply to Lloyd’s memorandum opposing On January 9, 2002, Lloyd applied for arbitration and HOVENSA filed a notice employment with Wyatt and signed the of joinder, thereby joining Wyatt’s motion DRA. He was not hired. Lloyd thereafter to compel arbitration. The District Court filed this action against both Wyatt and held a hearing on the motion on January HOVENSA. The complaint alleged: (1) 14, 2003, at which the testimony of several violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act of witnesses was taken. 1967; (2) violation of Titles 10 and 24 of the Virgin Islands Code; (3) wrongful After the evidentiary hearing, the discharge by HOVENSA; (4) breach of an District Court granted Wyatt’s motion to implied contract of good faith and fair compel arbitration and dismissed the dealing by HOVENSA; and (5) negligent complaint with prejudice. The District and/or intentional infliction of emotional Court held that AAA Rules 17, 18, and 34, distress. Lloyd requested punitive as well as incorporated into the DRA , were as compensatory damages. unconscionable. In addition, the District Court denied Lloyd’s request for discovery On September 27, 2002, Wyatt filed a on his theory that Wyatt used the DRA in motion to compel arbitration, pursuant to a racially discriminatory manner. The the DRA, and to stay the proceedings District Court noted that Lloyd had never pending arbitration. Lloyd opposed this filed a motion for an order to conduct motion, arguing that the agreement to discovery, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. arbitrate was unenforceable because AAA P. 7(b) or Local R. Civ. P. 7.1, during the 3 nearly three months between his October this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 48 21, 2002 mem orandum opp osing U.S.C. § 1612(a), because the case arose arbitration and the evidentiary hearing. under, inter alia, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ The District Court further held that the 2000e, et seq. The District Court most Lloyd had shown was that Wyatt exercised supplemental jurisdiction over differentiated between applicants on the Lloyd’s Virgin Islands claims pursuant to basis of residency and nothing more. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and 48 U.S.C. § 1612(a). Accordingly, the District Court found that the DRA had not been used as a tool of We have jurisdiction over this appeal unlawful discrimination. Finally, the and cross-appeal pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § District Court severed the confidentiality 16(a)(3) because the District Court’s order provisions of AAA Rules 17, 18 and 34 constituted a final decision with respect to from the DRA and granted Wyatt and an arbitration. See Green Tree Fin. Corp.- H O V E N SA ’s m o t i o n to c o m p e l Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 88-89 arbitration. Rather than stay the (2000). 3 We recognize that a district proceedings pending arbitration, however, court’s order compelling arbitration is the District Court dismissed the action usually an interlocutory order that cannot with prejudice because it found all of be appealed. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(2). 4 In Lloyd’s claims to be arbitrable and thus this case, however, the District Court both left no claims for adjudication by the compelled the parties to arbitrate their District Court. 2 Lloyd filed a timely notice dispute and also dismissed the matter with of appeal and Wyatt subsequently filed a prejudice. In Green Tree, the Supreme notice of cross-appeal. Court also considered an order compelling arbitration and dismissing the plaintiff’s