Emeronye v. Caci International, Inc.

141 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C. 2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a Nigerian female with a law degree from the University of London and an L.L.M. degree from DePaul University, majoring in health law. P began working for D in May 1997 as a 'temporary coder.' On August 6, 1997, D offered P a permanent position as a paralegal. The offer letter, which was signed by both parties, requested that P return a signed copy of the standard 'Employee Agreement,' which was attached. The offer letter also stated that 'your signature on [the Employee Agreement] acknowledges your understanding of the requirements contained therein, and your agreement to abide by them.' P signed the Employee Agreement on August 6, 1997. This two-page agreement provides in relevant part that any controversy or claim was to be settled by mediation and then if mediation failed by arbitration under the AAA. P alleges that in late 1997, her supervisor, a white female, began a course of disparate treatment toward her because of her race (black) and national origin (African/Nigerian). P applied for several open 'senior paralegal' and 'supervisory paralegal' positions that she alleges she was qualified for and contends that she was denied these promotions as a result of discrimination, and was retaliated against after filing an EEO complaint with CACI's EEO Office in August 1999. P sued. P filed this suit against her former employer, CACI International, Inc., alleging discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. P contends that she was denied promotions because of her race and/or national origin and that her employer engaged in retaliatory conduct. D moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing that under P's employment agreement her discrimination claims are subject to mandatory arbitration. P argues that: (1) the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., ('FAA'), does not apply to employment contracts; (2) the employment contract was an adhesion contract that plaintiff did not assent to; 3) the contract here does not contain a clear waiver of statutory rights; and (4) under the FAA, a court can stay a case pending arbitration, but cannot dismiss.