Plaintiff Natasha Meredith sued defendants Bayer Crop Science, LLC and Rose International in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of race and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as alternative claims for negligence, tortious interference with a business expectancy, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on Plaintiff’s employment contract with Rose International.
Factual Overview
Plaintiff, an African American woman, began working as an entry-level chemist at Bayer Crop Science in October 2015. She was hired by Rose International, a staffing company that recruits potential employees for various companies, including Bayer. Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with Rose, which included an Employment Terms Agreement (ETA) containing an arbitration clause. Despite performing well, Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to race and gender discrimination and a hostile work environment throughout her employment at Bayer. After nearly seven years, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against both Rose and Bayer.
Legal Analysis
Validity of the Arbitration Agreement: The court first addressed whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and Rose International. Plaintiff argued that the agreement lacked mutuality of obligation, but the court disagreed. It found that the ETA’s provisions did not exempt Rose from submitting its claims to arbitration, and the agreement was mutually binding.
Unilateral Amendment: Plaintiff contended that the ETA was unenforceable because it allowed Rose to unilaterally amend the arbitration agreement. The court rejected this argument, noting that while Rose could modify the employee handbook, the ETA itself could only be altered by a written agreement signed by both parties.
Electronic Signature: The court found that Plaintiff’s electronic signature on the New Hire Form was sufficient to bind her to the arbitration agreement, despite her claim that Defendants had not shown she was the person who signed the form.
Scope of the Arbitration Agreement: The court determined that all of Plaintiff’s claims, including the alternative tort claims, fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement as they related to her employment relationship with Rose and work at Bayer.
Enforceability Against Non-Signatory Bayer: Although Bayer was not a signatory to the employment agreement, the court held that Plaintiff was estopped from avoiding arbitration with Bayer. The court reasoned that Plaintiff’s petition treated Rose and Bayer as a “single unit” and sought to hold them jointly and severally liable on each count.
The court granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, staying the case pending arbitration and ordering the parties to provide updates on the progress of the arbitration proceedings.
Schrag on Law 