 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Galbraith v. Clark9/8/2005
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Casebolt and Loeb, JJ., concur
Plaintiff, Lisa Galbraith, appeals the district court's judgment compelling arbitration and dismissing her action against defendants, Bruce Clark and Jim Campbell. We affirm.
Galbraith and defendants were employees of Dillard's, Inc. Defendants were managers at the department store where Galbraith worked. In 2001, Galbraith signed an agreement that required her to arbitrate any dispute that might arise at work. The agreement had these pertinent features:
· It covered many types of disputes, including harassment, sex discrimination, and wrongful termination. It also covered " ny common law claim, including but not limited to defamation, tortious interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress."
· It broadly defined "Dillard's" to include "fellow associates, managers, supervisors, and all agents in their personal or official capacities."
· It provided: "Any dispute concerning this Agreement -- the way it was formed, its applicability, meaning, enforceability, or any claim that all or part of this Agreement is void or voidable -- is subject to arbitration under this Agreement."
In 2004, Galbraith sued defendants in district court, requesting damages for intentional interference with a contractual relationship, civil conspiracy, and outrageous conduct. She alleged that defendants had engaged in harassment and had fired her to retaliate for her filing a gender discrimination suit. She also alleged that defendants had conducted her termination in a humiliating manner.
Defendants moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. Galbraith resisted, arguing that (1) the arbitration agreement did not apply to a suit against defendants in their individual capacities, and (2) defendants were estopped from enforcing the agreement.
The court ordered the parties to arbitrate and dismissed the case.
I. Jurisdiction
We first consider whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. We conclude that we do.
It is undisputed that this arbitration is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. Under the FAA, an order compelling arbitration and dismissing the case is a final appealable order. Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 89, 121 S.Ct. 513, 521, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000). In contrast, a party may not appeal from an order that compels arbitration and stays the proceedings. Green Tree Fin., supra, 531 U.S. at 87 n.2, 121 S.Ct. at 520; Fonden v. U.S. Home Corp., 85 P.3d 600 (Colo. App. 2003).
Because the district court dismissed the action, instead of ordering a stay, we have jurisdiction to review Galbraith's claims.
II. Merits
Galbraith contends that the district court erred in compelling arbitration. We consider and reject her arguments as follows.
A. Estoppel Argument
Galbraith filed an affidavit in the district court, asserting these facts: (1) before signing the arbitration agreement, Galbraith was told that the agreement would be limited to claims in which Dillard's, Inc. could be held liable; (2) Galbraith was told this by agents of Dillard's, Inc.; and (3) had she known that the agreement would be interpreted to cover other disputes, she would not have signed. On the basis of these facts, Galbraith argued that defendants were estopped from enforcing the arbitration agreement.
Galbraith now contends that the district court erred in failing to address this argument before ordering the case to proceed to arbitration. We agree that the court did not address the argument, but
Page 1 2 3 Colorado Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|