P applied for a job at a Florida Waffle House. In connection with the application, the local restaurant managers informed P that they had to run a background check on him. P neither heard back from D nor received a copy of his background check, and his employment application was denied. Ten months later, in October 2015, P sued D and various data-reporting companies in federal district court, claiming that the defendants violated the FCRA. While that lawsuit was pending, P continued to seek employment with D elsewhere, and, in February 2016, P applied for and gained employment at a D store in Kansas City on February 4, 2016. P did not tell anyone at D that he had been denied employment in Florida or that he was suing the parent corporation in the Middle District of Florida. P did not tell his Florida lawyers that he had sought and gained employment at a location in another state. As part of his employee orientation, P signed an arbitration agreement. The agreement is standard for all new D employees, and local restaurant management typically does not consult with D's central corporate management or legal department before asking new employees to sign the agreement. In part, the agreement states: Waffle House and I will resolve by arbitration all claims and controversies ('claims'), past, present, or future, arising out of any aspect of or pertaining in any way to my employment, and specifically including, but not limited to, termination from employment, that I may have against Waffle House or against its officers, directors, employees or agents in their capacity as such or otherwise, or that Waffle House may have against me… The Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of this Agreement, including but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable. The agreement includes a class action waiver (which P’s lawyers were taking) and had a choice of law provision as Georgia. D's legal team in Georgia continued to work on P's class-action lawsuit and remained unaware that P had recently gained employment with Kansas City. By chance, D discovered the facts on March 21, 2016. D moved the district court to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement. D claimed that the agreement prevented P from proceeding with his Florida class-action lawsuit and that, because of the delegation provision, any threshold issues of arbitrability -- including the scope of the agreement -- were issues for the arbitrator, not the district court, to decide. The district court denied the motion. D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.