Pelletier v. Yellow Transportation, Inc.
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25254, 104 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1697, 549 F.3d 578 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A merger clause in an at-will employment application, stating it is the 'entire agreement' regarding the 'right to terminate employment,' does not nullify a separate, contemporaneously signed arbitration agreement because the forum for dispute resolution is analytically distinct from the substantive right of termination.
Facts:
- Daphene Pelletier began working for Yellow Transportation ('Yellow') in 2000 as a temporary employee.
- After that terminal closed, Pelletier applied for a new position with Yellow on July 31, 2003.
- During the application process, Pelletier signed two documents: an Employment Application and a separate Dispute Resolution Agreement (DRA).
- The Application stated that employment was at-will and contained a merger clause specifying it was the 'entire agreement...regarding my right and Yellow's right to terminate employment.' It also stated the application was active for only 30 days.
- The DRA required both parties to resolve all employment-related claims, including discrimination and retaliation, through exclusive, binding arbitration.
- A Yellow manager informed Pelletier she would not be hired unless she signed the DRA.
- On September 3, 2003, more than 30 days after she submitted the application, Yellow hired Pelletier.
- On May 12, 2006, Yellow terminated Pelletier's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Daphene Pelletier filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine against her former employer, Yellow Transportation.
- Pelletier alleged sex discrimination, age discrimination, and whistleblower retaliation under federal and state laws.
- Yellow filed a motion for summary judgment and, in the alternative, a motion to compel arbitration based on the Dispute Resolution Agreement.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Yellow and compelled arbitration.
- Pelletier, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with Yellow as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a separate Dispute Resolution Agreement, signed contemporaneously with an employment application, enforceable when the application contains a merger clause stating it is the 'entire agreement...regarding...the right to terminate employment'?
Opinions:
Majority - Torruella, Circuit Judge
Yes. The Dispute Resolution Agreement is enforceable because it is not nullified by the merger clause in the employment application. The court reasoned that the two documents address analytically distinct subjects. The Application's merger clause pertains to the substantive right of at-will termination, as evidenced by its surrounding text which emphasizes that employment is terminable 'with or without cause.' In contrast, the DRA governs the procedural forum for resolving disputes and does not define or limit the substantive right to terminate. The court also rejected the argument that the DRA expired with the 30-day application period, finding the two were separate agreements with no indication they were intended to be merged; the DRA itself contained no expiration date and was intended to cover disputes arising from the application process itself, regardless of employment status.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strong federal policy favoring arbitration by narrowly construing contract language that might otherwise invalidate an arbitration agreement. It establishes a key precedent in the First Circuit for distinguishing between agreements about substantive employment rights (like at-will status) and agreements about procedural forums (like arbitration). This 'analytically distinct' framework makes it more difficult for parties to use general merger clauses in one employment document to challenge the validity of a separate arbitration agreement. The case signals that courts will look to the overall context and purpose of each document to uphold arbitration clauses unless there is an unambiguous conflict.
