DOC PREVIEW
UNCW BLA 361 - Stroupes v The Finish Line

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 7 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 7 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 7 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 7 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

LINDSEY K. STROUPES, by parents and next friends, STEVE and BRENDA STROUPES, andSTEVE and BRENDA STROUPES, Plaintiffs v. THE FINISH LINE, INC. and ANTHONYBRADLEY, DefendantsNo. 1:04-cv-133 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6975March 15, 2005, Decided CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants, an employer and a manager, filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of the claims of plaintiffs, an employee and her parents, for sexual harassment under federal and state law, assault and battery, and outrageous conduct. The manager filed a motion to dismiss,as a matter of law, the sexual harassment claim under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-21-101 to 4-21-1004.OVERVIEW: The employer hired a 16-year-old employee. The employee and her parents filed an actionagainst the employer and the employee's manager for sexual harassment, assault and battery, and outrageous conduct. The court denied the motion of the employer and manager to dismiss and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.S. §§ 1 to 16, because the employment contract, which contained an arbitration clause, was voidable by the employee, a minor, and was repudiated and voided by the filing of the action. The court granted the manager's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the THRA claim that he sexually harassed the employee by touching and kissing the employee and requesting intimacies. The court held that such allegation did not indicate that the manager used his authority to seek sexual favors from the employee and, thus, raised a claim for supervisor-created hostile work environment, not quid pro harassment. The court held that the manager was not individually liable on the hostile work environment claim absent an allegation that the manager encouraged or prevented the employer from taking corrective action.OUTCOME: The court denied the motions to dismiss and compel arbitration. The court granted the manager's motion to dismiss, with prejudice, the THRA sexual harassment claim.CORE TERMS: employment contract, infancy, voidable, sexual harassment, arbitration agreement, arbitration, disaffirm, compel arbitration, employment application, supervisor, adults, void, hostile work environment, enforceable, voided, years old, purchase price, publicpolicy, harassment, sexual, state law, matter of law, general law, case law, assault and battery, outrageous conduct, arbitration provision, transaction involving, citations omitted, actually paidCOUNSEL: [*1] For Steve Stroupes, individually and as parent and next friend of minor child next friend, Lindsey K Stroupes, Plaintiff: George M Derryberry, Chattanooga, TNFor Brenda Stroupes, individually and as parent and next friend of minor child next friend, Lindsey K Stroupes, Plaintiff: George M Derryberry, Chattanooga, TNFor Finish Line Inc, Defendant: Kenneth J Yerkes, Stephanie A.H. Blackman, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN; Michael G Derrick, Shuttleworth Williams, PLLC, RoaneWaring, III, Shuttleworth, Williams, Harper, Waring & Derrick, PLLC, Memphis, TNFor Anthony - Bradley, Defendant: Leslie A Cory, Chattanooga, TN JUDGES: R. ALLAN EDGAR, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE OPINION BY: R. ALLAN EDGAROPINIONMEMORANDUMThe Plaintiffs, Lindsey Stroupes ("Lindsey") and her parents, Steve and Brenda Stroupes ("Steve" and "Brenda") (collectively the "Plaintiffs") brought this action against The Finish Line, Inc. ("Finish Line") and Anthony Bradley ("Bradley") (collectively the "Defendants"). Against both Defendants, the Plaintiffs bring a claim for sexual harassment pursuant to the TENNESSEE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ("THRA"), T.C.A. §§ 4-21-101 to 4-21-1004, [*2] as well as claims for assault and battery and outrageous conduct under state law. [Court File No. 1]. And against Finish Line, the Plaintiffs also bring a claim for sexual harassment under Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. [Court File Nos. 16, 18]. Currently pending before the Court are the Defendants' respective motions to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 to 16. [Court File Nos. 24, 27]. Bradley also moves to dismiss the THRA claim against him as a matter of law. [Court File No. 27]. The Plaintiffs responded to the motions [Court File No. 33] and Finish Line submitted a reply [Court File No. 40].I. BackgroundIn the Spring of 2003 Lindsey Stroupes ("Lindsey") was sixteen years old and a sophomore at Soddy Daisy High School. [Court File No. 36, Lindsey Aff. at P 3]. While Lindsey was working at the "Cookie Company," a store in Northgate Mall, Anthony Bradley ("Bradley"), the manager of Finish Line's retail store in the mall, approached Lindsey inviting her to applyfor a position at Finish Line. [*3] [Id.]. Accepting Bradley's invitation, Lindsey applied for a position as a sales associate. [Id. at PP 4, 5]. Finish Line and Bradley hired Lindsey for this position. [Id. at P 7]. At some point, Lindsey signed an employment application ("employment contract"). [Id. at PP 9, 10; Court File No. 26, Johnson Aff, Ex. B]. In pertinent part, the employment application required that all claims against Finish Line be submitted tobinding arbitration, [Court File No. 26, Johnson Aff, Ex. B], as detailed in Finish Line's "Employee Dispute Resolution Plan," [Id. at Ex. A].II. DiscussionA. Whether the Employment Contract is EnforceableThe FAA provides that HN1"[a] written provision in any . . . contract evidencing a transactioninvolving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 U.S.C. § 2. HN2In light of this statutory directive, there exists a strong federal policy in favor of arbitration. Cooper v. MRM Inv. Co., 367 F.3d 493, 498 (6th Cir. 2004); [*4] Stout v. J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d 709, 714 (6th Cir. 2000)(citing Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614, 626, 87 L. Ed. 2d 444, 105 S. Ct. 3346 (1985)). And any doubts as to the parties' intentions regarding arbitration should be resolved in favor of arbitration. Stout, 228 F.3d at 714 (citing Soler, 473U.S. at 626).There is no doubt that the instant contract, an employment contract, evidences a transaction involving commerce. See Circuit City


View Full Document

UNCW BLA 361 - Stroupes v The Finish Line

Documents in this Course
TWO PESOS

TWO PESOS

16 pages

Reading

Reading

13 pages

Russia

Russia

113 pages

Contracts

Contracts

55 pages

Property

Property

54 pages

Contracts

Contracts

45 pages

Load more
Download Stroupes v The Finish Line
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Stroupes v The Finish Line and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Stroupes v The Finish Line 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?