Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Appellant's Brief
Appellant's Brief
No. 19-50792
-v-
made in order that the judges of this Court may evaluate possible
disqualification or recusal:
ii
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
iii
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
That section states, “[t]he rights and remedies provided for in this section
a federal jury trial for a whistleblower claim under that statute. Id. at
e.g., Engrossed Amendment Senate Text, § 844A, Dec. 12, 2012, available
at https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/4310/text/eas.
rewrite clear statutes under the banner of our own policy concerns,” Azar
v. Allina Health Servs., 139 S. Ct. 1804, 1815 (2019) (Gorsuch, J.).
iv
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Jurisdictional Statement............................................................................ 1
v
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
K. This appeal was timely filed after the District Court compelled
arbitration and dismissed all claims against all defendants,
including Rininger, who was not a party to any arbitration
agreement. .................................................................................... 14
Argument .................................................................................................. 21
vi
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
B. The District Court erred by rejecting the plain text of the statute
and finding Robertson waived the right and remedy of a federal
jury trial. Defendants admit that the agreement at issue was a
mandatory condition of employment, which makes any purported
waiver invalid under 41 U.S.C. § 4712(c)(7). .............................. 23
D. The cases cited by the District Court and Magistrate Court are
distinguishable and inapposite because they involve statutes
where Congress has expressly encouraged arbitration, lack
nonwaiver language, or contain other indicia that mandatory
arbitration is permissible, which is not the case with § 4712. ... 28
II. The District Court erred by ignoring the plain language of the
arbitration agreement and compelling arbitration for wrongful
discharge claims and post-employment independent torts. Neither
cause of action is covered by the plain text of the arbitration
agreement. ....................................................................................... 34
vii
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 59
viii
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
14 Penn Plaza, LLC v. Pyett,
556 U.S. 247 (2009) ............................................................................... 32
ix
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178 (1962) ............................................................................... 20
x
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
P&P Indus., Inc. v. Sutter Corp., 179 F.3d 861 (10th Cir. 1999) ........... 44
Paper, Allied-Indus., Chem. and Energy Workers Intern. Union Loc. No.
4-2001 v. ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Co.,
449 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 2006) ........................................................... 19, 20
Volt Info. Sci., Inc. v. Bd. Of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.,
489 U.S. 468 (1989) ............................................................................... 34
Watkins v. Lujan,
922 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1991) ........................................................... 21, 55
Yates v. Manale,
341 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 1965) ................................................................. 55
xi
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1291 ......................................................................................... 1
41 U.S.C. § 4712 .............................. iv, 1, 15, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33
9 U.S.C. § 3 ............................................................................................... 50
Other Authorities
Congresional Record, 158 Cong. Rec. S7834 (daily ed. Dec. 12, 2012) .. 15
Engrossed Amendment Senate Text, § 844A, Dec. 12, 2012 ............. iv, 25
Pub. L. 102–166, title I, § 118, Nov. 21, 1991, 105 Stat. 1081 ......... 27, 30
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 ...................................................................................... 55
xii
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The District Court had original subject matter jurisdiction over this
U.S.C. § 4712. The District Court had original jurisdiction over the
from the District Court’s final dismissal of all claims. Final judgment
was entered on July 30, 2019. ROA.233. Notice of Appeal was timely
1
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 14 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
ISSUES PRESENTED
employment.
ISSUE TWO: Under Fifth Circuit precedent, a court may not add or
2
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 15 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
arbitration?
ISSUE FOUR: Under Fifth Circuit precedent, a court may not compel
3
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 16 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
4
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 17 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
and dismissing his lawsuit. ROA.234. The facts detailed below are
amended complaint.
Intratek. ROA.9.
5
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 18 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
claims. ROA.68.
6
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 19 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
details the work or services sought, the requirements for providing those
for that contract. ROA.13. Fahami then used this information to secure
a better deal with Lockheed Martin, who was going to be prime on the
particular contract that the VA was going to seek bids on. ROA.13. In
office in Los Angeles, CA, with the main purpose of providing Fahami a
through unlawful efforts to curry favor with VA officials who worked for
7
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 20 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
the Enterprise Service Desk (ESD), which used to be called the National
Information Technology Manager for the NSD, and Wendy Owens, Chief
of Operations at the NSD. ROA.158. Fahami would always pay for these
at the NSD, routinely attended happy hours that were paid for by Fahami
on—and may even have been the lead—on the proposal evaluation team
that scores all of the submitted proposals and then recommends which
proposal the VA should accept. ROA.159. Most of the time, the team’s
for companies she did not like and promote contracts for companies she
8
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 21 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
In February 2015, Fahami gave Rininger his credit card to pay for
officials attended the happy hour, including the three mentioned above.
Las Vegas for fun. ROA.159. On at least one other occasion, Fahami
from Wendy Owens by hiring her son Jeremiah Owens, and taking her
disclosure agreements with several firms that compete for contracts with
9
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 22 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
indicated that he was not willing to breach those agreements and provide
to do: give Intratek and its partners inside information to insure they had
no government resources were used and things were not done through
10
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 23 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
told Fahami that he believed what he was being asked to do was illegal
Robertson. ROA.15.
Intratek and how he was fired to the Office of the Inspector General for
the time of his lawsuit, the investigation was still open, active, and
They told current and potential business partners that Robertson was
11
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 24 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
62.
This campaign is ongoing and has currently cost Robertson and his
Because the OIG investigation was ongoing at the time the statute
ROA.25. On May 7, the Court granted his motion to seal. ROA.25. After
complaint and serve the Defendants on July 20, 2018. ROA 25-32.
case and compel arbitration. ROA.57. To date, Rininger has not moved
12
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 25 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
ROA.104-05.
claims against all parties instead of staying the case. ROA.104-05. While
include dismissing all claims against Rininger, who, again, had not
ROA.147. At the time the motion was filed, there were no pleading
the motion to amend, the District Court went even further than the
arbitrated. ROA.233. At that time, Rininger had still not even answered
unequivocally told the District Court prior to its ruling that he “cannot
13
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 26 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
additional necessary party would have prevented the District Court from
compelling all claims against all parties to arbitration and dismissing all
14
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 27 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
agreements).
15
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 28 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
Under Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent, a court may not
rewrite or ignore the plain text of a statute, nor may a court add terms to
condition of employment.
reversed because:
and after the end of his employment and are not related to and
arbitration agreement that are not present in the plain language of the
16
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 29 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
agreement. Here, the District Court ignored the plain language and
because, even putting that aside, not all of Robertson’s claims are subject
Fahami’s claims, the claims against Roger Rininger must still remain
17
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 30 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
employee of Intratek, did not sign any arbitration agreement with any
party in this case, and did not even work for any employer who is a party
there no arbitration agreement on which the District Court could base its
order, but because Rininger never moved for arbitration, the District
jurisdiction on the District Court. Undersigned counsel has not been able
18
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 31 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
motion to amend to add a necessary party for the express reason that
such an amendment would prevent the district court from dismissing the
case and shutting the courthouse doors. Indeed, such a ruling would
leave to amend be “freely given.” Such a ruling also conflicts with this
establish jurisdiction.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Crawford Prof. Drugs, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 748 F.3d 249, 256
(5th Cir. 2014). This is not an examination of the merits of the claims.
Paper, Allied-Indus., Chem. and Energy Workers Intern. Union Loc. No.
4-2001 v. ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Co., 449 F.3d 616, 619 (5th Cir.
2006). “Rather, the court ‘is confined to ascertaining whether the party
19
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 32 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
This Court reviews the denial of leave to amend under the abuse of
discretion standard. Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.3d 594, 597
Texas A & M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 245 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). These adequate justifications include
“undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,
20
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 33 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
granted. Watkins v. Lujan, 922 F.3d 261, 264 (5th Cir. 1991) (“[L]eave to
freely given.”).
ARGUMENT
our own policy concerns.” Azar v. Allina Health Servs., 139 S. Ct. 1804,
two reasons: (1) the plain text of 41 U.S.C. § 4712(c) prohibits waiver of
21
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 34 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
agreements like the one in this case that waive rights and remedies as a
2The plain text of the statute establishes that trial by jury is both a right and remedy
because it is expressly included in the “Remedies” section. See 48 C.F.R. § 3.908-6
Remedies (listing “Complainants right to go to court”). Further, this Court holds that
where the burden of proof is less stringent than in other similar cases, Congress
intends that “trial by jury [be] part of the remedy.” See Howard v. Canadian
National/Illinois Cent. R.R., 233 Fed. Appx. 356, 357 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Boeing
Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 372 (5th Cir. 1969), overruled in other respects,
Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, 107 F.3d 331, 336 (5th Cir.1997) (en banc). Here, the
burden of proof is contributing factor, a much lower standard of proof than in the
great majority of retaliation cases, which generally requires but-for causation. See
41 U.S.C. § 4712(c)(6) compare with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (Title VII retaliation statute
22
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 35 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
employment:
Id.3
requiring but-for cause). Therefore, under Howard, Congress intends a trial by jury
to be part of the remedy provided by this whistleblower statute.
3 Section 4712(c)(7) does not categorically prohibit all arbitration agreements or other
23
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 36 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
plain text of the statute, because the “agreement” was both a “condition
and would require this Court to do Congress’s job by rewriting the plain
of § 4712(c)(7) stated:
The rights and remedies provided for in this section may not
be waived by any agreement, policy, form, or condition of
24
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 37 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
See e.g., Engrossed Amendment Senate Text, § 844A, Dec. 12, 2012,
available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-
Appellees argue that the removal of those last two clauses actually
the statute’s rights and remedies. That is not a reasonable reading under
25
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 38 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
2018 relating to Z, including the May 4th email.” However, before the
lawyer sends the request to opposing counsel, the lawyer deletes the
clause referencing the May 4th email. Under the lower court’s and
May 4th email. Of course, the rules of grammar and common-sense show
that is not what the lawyer intends. Indeed, if opposing counsel made
that argument in refusing to produce the May 4th email, any judge would
intended to exclude the May 4th email from the revised production
request, the lawyer would have said, “Please produce all communications
between A and B from May 2018 relating to Z, except the email from May
4th.” That is so because the initial draft shows that the lawyer knows a
May 4th email exists and is one of the communications from May 2018.
The same logic applies here. The legislative history shows Congress
26
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 39 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
shows its belief that the nonwaiver language as written already includes
discovery example above, removing that language does not change what
statutes, including Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and § 1981. See e.g.,
Pub. L. 102–166, title I, § 118, Nov. 21, 1991, 105 Stat. 1081.5
4 Use of a different word would render a different result. For example, if the draft
amendment said “and predispute arbitration agreements,” the lower courts and
Appellees’ argument would be correct, but that is not the word Congress used, and a
court may not change it because it prefers a certain result. Azar, 139 S. Ct. at 1815.
5 “Where appropriate and to the extent authorized by law, the use of
27
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 40 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
different reading of the plain language of the agreement, the plain text
4712(c)(7).
ROA.92, 93, 96, 97, 98. CompuCredit does not apply here because the
“right to sue” language in the CROA does not specify a right to sue in
U.S. 95, 99 (2012). While the Ninth Circuit and respondents inferred
that the “right to sue” meant the right to sue in court, that statement is
nowhere in the text of the statute. Id. Further, the Supreme Court held
28
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 41 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
that the CROA section at issue did not create the right to sue under the
CROA. Id. That right was created in a different section that did not have
Court was required to apply the text of the statute as written and could
Here, though, the statute at issue expressly creates the right and
that must be engaged in prior to the right and remedy of a federal jury
trial, and sets the burden of proof as contributing factor. Id. Then after
doing all of that, the statute explicitly says, “rights or remedies provided
in the CROA section examined by CompuCredit, that case does not apply.
Instead, this Court, like the Court in CompuCredit, should enforce the
plain language of the statute that prohibits waiver of rights and remedies
29
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 42 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
(“[C]ourts aren’t free to rewrite clear statutes under the banner of our
Lane Corp, 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, McLeod v. General Mills, Inc.,
and Williams v. Cigna Financial Advisors, Inc., which are all ADEA
resolve disputes under the ADEA. Public Law 102-166, title I, § 118 from
Pub. L. 102–166, title I, § 118, Nov. 21, 1991, 105 Stat. 1081 (emphasis
for arbitration in the notes for § 4712. Indeed, as detailed above, the
30
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 43 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
arbitration did not exist for the ADEA, the wording of the ADEA as
U.S.C. § 4712. Instead, the statute lays out a very specific scheme of
right and remedy of a federal jury trial, and setting the burden of proof
retaliation statutes. Id. Unlike the ADEA, nothing in § 4712 shows any
31
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 44 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
Only one of the other cases directly cited by the Magistrate Court
Co., Inc., 968 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1992). But even that Ninth Circuit case
Polygraph Protection Act. Saari, 968 F.2d at 877. The Ninth Circuit held
that under the factors described in Gilmer, the EPPA did not prohibit
6The 14 Penn Plaza, LLC case is further inapplicable because it deals with an ADEA
arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement, which is not similar to an
arbitration agreement required as a condition of employment, as is the case here. See
14 Penn Plaza, LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 251 (2009).
32
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 45 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
the EPPA. Saari, 968 F.2d at 880. Here, after creating the right to a
nonwaiver provision states explicitly that the rights and remedies may
have adopted the Ninth Circuit’s view of the EPPA nonwaiver language.
See Harmon v. CB Squared Srvcs Inc., 624 F.Supp.2d 459, 467 n.5 (E.D.
Va. 2009) (“The Court is unaware of any other federal circuit that has
The plain language of the statute and its legislative history show
be compelled to arbitrate it. See Azar, 139 S. Ct. at 1815 (“[C]ourts aren’t
free to rewrite clear statutes under the banner of our own policy
concerns.”).
33
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 46 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
same way as any other contract. See E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc., 534
U.S. 279, 764 (2002) (citing among others, Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood &
Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 404, n.12 (1967)) (“The purpose of
other contracts, but not more so.”). If the arbitration agreement does not
include the specific claims being asserted, then the FAA “does not require
parties to arbitrate when they have not agreed to do so.” See Volt Info.
Sci., Inc. v. Bd. Of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S.
468, 478 (1989). After all, “[a]rbitration under the FAA is a matter of
consent, not coercion.” Waffle House, 534 U.S. 294. Therefore, “a party
In Archer and White, this Court refused to add the single word
34
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 47 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
expand and change the claims covered by the arbitration clause. See
Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., 935 F.3d 274, 283 (5th
Cir. 2019). In Archer and White, the appellant asked this Court to find
aid of arbitration. Id. at 282 n.39. In refusing to add or imply this single
additional term, even if the requested addition was plausible, this Court
explained:
35
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 48 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
lower court claims the plain language does.7 Under Supreme Court and
Fifth CircuitCase
precedent, that isDocument
1:18-cv-00373-LY the issue:
13-2 the
Filedparties
09/28/18 simply
Page 3 ofdid
5 not agree
1.2 INTRODUCTION
to arbitrate wrongful discharge claims. The parties could have agreed to
This handbook has been prepared to provide employees an overview of Intratek Computer, Inc.,
(“Intratek” or the “Company”) policies, benefits and rules. It is intended to familiarize
arbitrate such
employees claims,
with butinformation
the important the parties about thedid not, asand
Company, well because
as informationthey did not,
regarding
their own privileges and responsibilities. It is important that all employees read, understand, and
follow the provisions of the handbook. This handbook supersedes all previously issued
they cannot be compelled to do so. See Waffle House, 534 U.S. 294;
handbooks, agreements, and any inconsistent policy statements or memoranda.
ArcherIthandbook
may
andbecome
White necessary
Sales,fromInc.,
time to935
time to updateat
F.3d this283.
handbook. Any written changes to this
will be posted on the Company intranet so that employees will be aware of the new or
revised policies and procedures. No oral statements or representations can in any way change or
Here, as in Archer
alter the provisions and White,
of this handbook. the
Nothing in thislanguage of the
employee handbook contract
creates is “clear
or is intended
to create a promise or representation of continued employment for any employee, and should not
be considered as conveying contractual rights or promises to employees for continual
and unambiguous.”
employment of a specific or The very
indefinite term. first line of the agreement limits
Not all of the Company’s policies and procedures are set forth in this handbook. We have
applicability
summarizedto “between
only anyimportant
some of the more employee and
ones. If you the
have any Company . . . related
questions or concerns about to
this handbook or any other policy or procedure, please contact the Human Resources
Department.
employment.” ROA.68 (emphasis added):
2. GENERAL EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION
2.1 ARBITRATION
Any controversy, dispute or claim between any employee and the Company, or its officers,
agents or other employees related to employment, shall be settled by binding arbitration, at the
request of either party. Arbitration shall be the exclusive method for resolving any dispute;
provided, however, that either party may request provisional relief from a court of competent
jurisdiction, as provided in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.8. The arbitrability
of anyand
7 Intratek controversy,
Fahami dispute or claim
argued underlower
to the this Policy shall that
courts be determined by application
they should infer ofthat
the those
substantive provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. sections 1 and 2) and by
claims application
are covered, and judicially rewrite the contract to include them because
of the procedural provisions of the California Arbitration Act.
“Plaintiff’s claims would not exist but for the fact of his employment” and “the
arbitration agreement
The Claims which are to isbenot limited
arbitrated underin thisanyPolicyway to but
include, exclude termination
are not limited to claims foror post-
wages and
termination other compensation,
claims.” ROA.88. claims for breach
Of course, that of is
contract (express under
not correct or implied), claims for
standard rules of
violation of public policy, tort claims, and claims for discrimination and/or harassment
contract interpretation. Since termination is not one of the claims listed as arbitrable
(including, but not limited to, race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical
in the arbitration
disability, mentalagreement, standard
disability, medical contract
condition, maritalinterpretation means
status, age, pregnancy, sexthat such claim
or sexual
is not arbitrable.
orientation) to theSeeextent
Archer and
allowed byWhite
law, andSales, Inc.,
claims for 935 F.3d
violation of anyat 283.state,
federal, TheorMagistrate
other
Court does not address whether the plain language includes wrongful termination
government law, statute, regulation, or ordinance, except for claims for workers' compensation
claims,and unemployment insurance benefits.
instead sidestepping the issue by ruling that employment claims can be
arbitrated even after
The employee an employee
and the Company will selectis terminated,
an arbitrator by mutual anagreement.
entirelyIf thedifferent
employee issue.
ROA.103-02. The District
and the Company are unable Court
to agree similarly does not
on a neutral arbitrator, claim
either thatelect
party may theto plain
obtain a language
list
expressly covers wrongful discharge. ROA.230. Instead, directly in conflict with this
of arbitrators from the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service, the American Arbitration
Court’s1ntratek
ruling in Archer & White,
Computer, Inc.
the District Court implies
©2000-2011 Intratek Computer, Inc.
such coverage and
Employee Handbook 2011
36
Case: 19-50792as conveying
be considered Document: 00515189942
contractual Page: to49employees
rights or promises Date Filed: 11/06/2019
for continual
employment of a specific or indefinite term.
Not all of the Company’s policies and procedures are set forth in this handbook. We have
summarized only some of the more important ones. If you have any questions or concerns about
this handbook or any other policy or procedure, please contact the Human Resources
Department.
Plainly, a terminated individual is not an employee. Thus, on its
2. GENERAL EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION
face, 2.1
the ARBITRATION
agreement does not apply. The next paragraph is also
Any controversy, dispute or claim between any employee and the Company, or its officers,
unambiguous.
agents or other That paragraph
employees detailsshall
related to employment, covered disputes,
be settled but does
by binding arbitration, not list
at the
request of either party. Arbitration shall be the exclusive method for resolving any dispute;
provided, however, that either party may request provisional relief from a court of competent
wrongful discharge,
jurisdiction, as provided inseparation,
California Code of or
Civil termination as covered
Procedure section 1281.8. claims.
The arbitrability
of any controversy, dispute or claim under this Policy shall be determined by application of the
substantive provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. sections 1 and 2) and by
ROA.68:
application of the procedural provisions of the California Arbitration Act.
The Claims which are to be arbitrated under this Policy include, but are not limited to claims for
wages and other compensation, claims for breach of contract (express or implied), claims for
violation of public policy, tort claims, and claims for discrimination and/or harassment
(including, but not limited to, race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical
disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age, pregnancy, sex or sexual
orientation) to the extent allowed by law, and claims for violation of any federal, state, or other
government law, statute, regulation, or ordinance, except for claims for workers' compensation
and unemployment insurance benefits.
The employee and the Company will select an arbitrator by mutual agreement. If the employee
Asthethe
and plain
Company language
are unable makes
to agree on a neutral clear,
arbitrator,the
either only claims
party may covered
elect to obtain a list are
of arbitrators from the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service, the American Arbitration
1ntratek Computer, Inc. Employee Handbook 2011
those that occur while the individual
©2000-2011 is an
Intratek Computer, Inc. employee.
Unauthorized duplication or copying by other than
ROA.68. The
Intratek Computer, Inc. employees is prohibited
before the individual becomes an employee nor claims that arise after the
ROA.68. In fact, the only cause of action listed that deals with separation
37
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 50 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
that the contract only covers claims arising during employment and
“inconsistent with the plain text of the contract.” See Archer and White
38
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 51 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
which expressly states that employees are giving up the right to “have a
simply does not apply to the tort claims of former employees involving
Court. See Archer and White Sales, Inc., 935 F.3d at 283.
39
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 52 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
prior employment with Intratek, and nothing in his complaint says they
Nor do the lower courts say they do. In fact, neither the Magistrate
Court nor the District Court finds that tortious interference with the
arbitration and holds “that Robertson’s tort claims are within the scope
40
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 53 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
and White Sales, Inc. In that case, this Court explained, “we do not
override the clear intent of the parties, or reach a result inconsistent with
the plain text of the contract, simply because the policy favoring
arbitration is implicated.” Archer and White Sales, Inc., 935 F.3d at 283
(emphasis in original). Yet here, the District Court did exactly that by
District Court rewrote from the bench the terms of the contract to include
8 Appellees likewise do not explain how their tortious interference with Robertson’s
independent post-employment contracts was caused by or connected to his
employment. Instead, their argument is philosophical: “Plaintiff’s claims would not
exist but for the fact of his employment with Intratek and therefore his claims are
related to his employment.” ROA.88. None of the cases Appellees cite in their motion
actually support that position. Indeed, this Court routinely rejects the argument that
temporal proximity is sufficient to prove legal causation for claims brought by
plaintiffs. See, e.g., Strong v. Univ. Healthcare Sys., LLC, 482 F.3d 802, 808 (5th Cir.
2007) (“[T]emporal proximity alone is insufficient to prove but for causation.”).
41
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 54 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
without any support from the plain text of the agreement. See ROA.230.
This Court’s own recent precedent does not permit such judicial activism.
denied.
All of the cases cited by Appellees’ and the Magistrate Court on this
issue are inapplicable because they all concern claims that obviously
Court cites Hays v. HCA Holdings, Inc., for the proposition that tortious
by an arbitration clause. Hays v. HCA Holdings, Inc., 838 F.3d 605, 608
(5th Cir. 2016). Indeed, the arbitration clause in Hays stated that all
42
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 55 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
““Hays essentially alleges that HCA tortiously interfered with his at-will
609.
Here, that is plainly not the case. The contracts Robertson alleges
are not related to his employment, do not concern his employment, and
interference with third party contracts can arise from a different contract
defendant that contained an arbitration clause. 179 F.3d 861, 871 (10th
43
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 56 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
Cir. 1999). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached the
the plaintiff’s third-party contracts. Id. at 871-72. The court held that
the tortious interference with these third-party contracts “is the manner
Here, again, that is not the case. Robertson does not allege that
his employment had already ended. Nor do Appellees argue that they
Further, unlike in Sutter, the arbitration agreement here does not even
44
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 57 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
arbitration.
Finally, the Magistrate Court cites the district court case of Colt
the Northern District held intentional tort claims that hinge on the
from it. Colt Unconventional Res., LLC v. Resolute Energy Corp., 3:13-
Once again, that is not the case here. Based on the facts alleged in
the complaint, had Robertson never worked for Intratek, he could still
bring the exact same claims as he does now. In other words, Robertson’s
interreference claims are not related to his employment and thus not
45
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 58 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
alter this Court’s command “not [to] override the clear intent of the
parties, or reach a result inconsistent with the plain text of the contract,
Archer and White Sales, Inc., 935 F.3d at 283 (emphasis in original).
Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. at 294 (holding that the EEOC cannot be
bound to arbitrate claims because “[n]o one asserts that the EEOC is a
46
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 59 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347, 355 (5th Cir. 2003). There are six
even addressed the fact that Rininger is not a signatory to the arbitration
47
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 60 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
the Magistrate’s Report that the claims against Rininger were not
And if any bases for forcing the claims against him into arbitration
the claims against him be stayed pending the arbitration of the other
9In doing so, Rininger cited Sam Reisfeld & Son Import Co. v. S. A. Eteco, 530 F.2d
679, 681 (5th Cir. 1976) for premise that the tortious interference claims against him
are “inherently inseparable” from those against the other Defendants. Later cases
have pointed out that S.A. Eteco specifically involved a parent company and successor
corporations, and have declined to apply that doctrine in situations (such as this one)
where the supposedly inseparable claims were against a defendant that was “not
related to [the other] Defendants as parent or subsidiary, or in any other formal way.”
Bayoil, S.A. v. Polembros Ship. Ltd., 196 F.R.D. 479, 484 (S.D. Tex. 2000).
48
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 61 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
cannot bind Robertson and Rininger to arbitrate claims that they both
reversed.
despite the plain text of the whistleblower statute, its legislative history,
the plain language of the arbitration agreement, and Fifth Circuit case
“shall . . . stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had
49
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 62 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
added). Under Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, the Fifth Circuit has held
Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1992). Here, even if
dismissal.
not all of Robertson’s claims are arbitrable for the simple fact that he has
claims against Roger Rininger, who has admitted that he is not subject
50
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 63 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
In Alford, the Fifth Circuit held that dismissal is only within the
Court’s discretion “when all of the issues raised in the district court must
(emphasis added).
51
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 64 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
Further, even if that were not the case, Roger Rininger did not sign the
the arbitration agreement,” and has not even asked for arbitration.
ROA.203.
appropriate than dismissal if the possibility existed that the parties could
12080194, at *7.
52
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 65 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
both claims, Robertson will have to return to the District Court. Further,
be inappropriate.
claims being time-barred because the statute of limitations will have run
on all of them.
without any recourse, since the courthouse doors would be closed to him.
10This is not a mere hypothetical. That very situation recently arose in one of
undersigned counsel’s other cases that was sent to arbitration. In that case, the
defendant refused to pay the arbitrator’s fee, which caused the arbitrator to dismiss
the case and necessitated going back to state district court. See Boeve v. Insuraprise,
Inc., No. 16-1248-C26 (26th Dist. Ct. Williamson County, Nov. 8, 2016).
53
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 66 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
arbitration is compelled.
arbitration.”). There is not a single case in this Circuit holding that such
11 The only cases that counsel for Plaintiff has found in which this Court upheld a
district court’s decision to deny leave to add a required party under Rule 19 have been
where (1) the district court determined that the party was not, in fact, required, see,
e.g., Hawthorne Land Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 431 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 2005)
(“The court held that Nire was not a necessary party under Rule 19 . . . .”); or (2) if
the amendment would destroy diversity jurisdiction, and thus would be futile. See
Helms v. Speartex Grain Co., 983 F.2d 232 (5th Cir. 1993); Hensgens v. Deere & Co.,
833 F.2d 1179, 1182 (5th Cir. 1987). The District Court’s conclusion here does not
fall into either camp. Indeed, it concluded that this amendment would create
jurisdiction, precisely the opposite of cases such as Hensgens. ROA.232.
54
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 67 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
court grant leave to add an indispensable party even after the case was
Yates v. Manale, 341 F.3d 294, 294 (5th Cir. 1965) (per curiam). Further,
the mandate in the Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s own prior
also Watkins v. Lujan, 922 F.3d 261, 264 (5th Cir. 1991) (“[L]eave to
freely given.”).
55
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 68 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
Dussouy , 660 F.3d 594, 597-98 (5th Cir. 1981). The District Court
lacks discretion to deny leave to add a necessary party unless the party
19(a)(1)(B)(i); n.11, supra. Put another way, failure to grant leave to add
the District Court failed to make a determination one way or the other
motion to amend.
the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of a motion for leave to amend where
the plaintiffs were trying to drop their central claim, add a defendant,
56
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 69 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
and were “effectively reconstructing the case anew, after it had been
pending in the district court for years and was nearing the close of
extensive discovery.” Mayeux v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 376 F.3d
the District Court has not even entered a scheduling order. In addition,
already brought against the same parties that Robertson is already suing
circumstances.
57
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 70 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
Goldstein v. MCI WorldCom, 340 F.3d 238, 255 (5th Cir. 2003). Literally
none of the issues raised by this Court in Goldstein exist here. Indeed,
almost over. Mayeux, 376 F.3d at 427 Here, not all Appellees have even
deadlines have passed, and not a single page of discovery has been
produced.
Further, this Court has held that even a request to amend is not
untimely even after judgment has been entered. In Dussouy, this Court
held that moving to amend 41 days after dismissal of its claim did not
constitute undue delay. See Dussouy, 660 F.3d at 598. There, this Court
58
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 71 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
specifically stated that “mere passage of time need not result in refusal
amendment.” Id.
Here there has been no finding of undue delay. The District Court
abused its discretion in denying Robertson’s proper and valid motion for
CONCLUSION
should be stayed because not all claims are arbitrable, there is the
possibility that the parties will have to return to the District Court to
adjudicate some or all of these claims, and because dismissal would time-
59
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 72 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
establish jurisdiction.
Court’s July 30, 2019, order adopting the Magistrate’s Report and
dismissing this case be reversed in full, and for such other relief to which
he may be entitled.
Respectfully Submitted,
Austin Campbell
Texas Bar No. 24103768
60
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 73 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Colin Walsh, certify that today, November 11, 2019, a copy of the
the following email addresses for the Appellees via the Court’s ECF
system:
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
that this brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Fed. R. App.
P. 32(a)(7)(B)(i).
61
Case: 19-50792 Document: 00515189942 Page: 74 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
version of this brief and/or a copy of the word printout to the Court.
Court’s striking this brief and imposing sanctions against the person who
signed it.
62