The world’s largest full-service restaurant company, which operates chains like The Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse, has had its motion to compel arbitration in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit granted by a federal judge in Washington state.
The background: The case revolves around an employment-related injury sustained by the plaintiff, a line cook at one of the defendant’s restaurants. In May 2017, the plaintiff injured his foot after tripping over a drain in the restaurant’s kitchen. During the worker’s compensation process, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the FDCPA and state laws related to debt collection practices. He also claimed defamation, in addition to filing for retaliation, discrimination, and failure to accommodate related to his injury.
- As part of his employment contract, the plaintiff had agreed to abide by a Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) that included a mandatory arbitration clause. This agreement specified that disputes would be handled via mediation or arbitration, rather than court proceedings.
The ruling: Given that the plaintiff had explicitly consented to the DRP and its terms when he signed the acknowledgment in 2016, there was nothing for Judge Richard A. Jones of the District Court for the Western District of Washington to rule that the arbitration agreement wasn’t valid.
- The plaintiff argued that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and should not be enforced due to its complexity and the fact that the dispute occurred well after the employment relationship had ended.
- Judge Jones disagreed, ruling that the plaintiff’s FDCPA and defamation claims fell within the scope of the arbitration provision. The plaintiff’s claims were closely tied to his employment-related injury, making them subject to the DRP’s arbitration provisions. The court also emphasized that the DRP’s terms were clear, accessible, and did not contain any unconscionable elements, rejecting the plaintiff’s claims of procedural and substantive unconscionability.
- Judge Jones instructed the parties to provide updates on the arbitration status within 90 days and warned that failure to initiate arbitration within 12 months could result in the dismissal of the claims.
