LINDSEY K STROUPES by parents and next friends STEVE and BRENDA STROUPES and STEVE and BRENDA STROUPES Plaintiffs v THE FINISH LINE INC and ANTHONY BRADLEY Defendants No 1 04 cv 133 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 2005 U S Dist LEXIS 6975 March 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 action against 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 public policy harassment sexual state law matter of law general law case law assault and battery outrageous conduct arbitration provision transaction involving citations omitted actually paid COUNSEL 1 For Steve Stroupes individually and as parent and next friend of minor child next friend Lindsey K Stroupes Plaintiff George M Derryberry Chattanooga TN For Brenda Stroupes individually and as parent and next friend of minor child next friend Lindsey K Stroupes Plaintiff George M Derryberry Chattanooga TN For Finish Line Inc Defendant Kenneth J Yerkes Stephanie A H Blackman Barnes Thornburg LLP Indianapolis IN Michael G Derrick Shuttleworth Williams PLLC Roane Waring III Shuttleworth Williams Harper Waring Derrick PLLC Memphis TN For Anthony Bradley Defendant Leslie A Cory Chattanooga TN JUDGES R ALLAN EDGAR CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE OPINION BY R ALLAN EDGAR OPINION MEMORANDUM The 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 Background In 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 apply for 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 to binding arbitration Court File No 26 Johnson Aff Ex B as detailed in Finish Line s Employee Dispute Resolution Plan Id at Ex A II Discussion A Whether the Employment Contract is Enforceable The FAA provides that HN1 a written provision in any contract evidencing a transaction involving 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 HN2 In 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 473 U S at 626 There is no doubt that the instant contract an employment contract evidences a transaction involving commerce See Circuit City Stores Inc v Adams 532 U S 105 11824 149 L Ed 2d 234 121 S Ct 1302 2001 So HN3 in determining whether to compel arbitration the Court s inquiry is twofold first whether a valid enforceable arbitration agreement exists and second whether the instant claims fall within the scope of that agreement Floss v Ryan s Family Steak Houses Inc 211 F 3d 306 311 12 6th Cir 2000 citing Soler 473
View Full Document
Unlocking...