Employer's Attempt To Force Employee To Sign Arbitration Agreement Covering Pending EEOC Charge Backfires
Goldsmith sued the employer, asserting (among other things) a Title VII retaliation (retaliatory discharge) claim. Goldsmith prevailed after a jury trial. The 11th Circuit affirmed.
Goldsmith was discharged for refusing to sign a dispute resolution agreement that would have covered a pending charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He offered to sign an amended agreement that wouldn't have covered the pending EEOC charge, but the employer declined. The employer argued that under Weeks v. Harden Manufacturing Corp., 291 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir 2002), its decision to discharge Goldsmith for refusing to sign the arbitration agreement was not evidence of retaliatory motive. The court disagreed.
In Weeks, the 11th Circuit held that an employee's refusal to sign an arbitration agreement did not constitute protected activity supporting a claim of retaliation. The court noted, however, that Weeks did not address an employee's refusal to sign an agreement that applied to a pending discrimination charge. The court also noted that "Goldsmith was terminated immediately after and because he refused to relinquish his right to a jury trial for his pending charge." The court thus agreed with Goldsmith's argument that "his immediate termination for his refusal to sign the agreement established a causal relation between his protected activity-the filing of his charge of discrimination-and his termination."
Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction includes Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
This abstract was provided by LawMemo.Com, publisher of the popular Employment Law Memo email service. Editor Ross Runkel can be reached at Ross@LawMemo.Com or 1-877-399-8028.