Ripken Baseball Sex Discrimination Case - Arbitration Clause Not Enforceable

In a recent decision, Raglani v. Ripken Professional Baseball, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied an employer’s motion to dismiss or stay and compel arbitration in a gender discrimination action brought by a former employee. The decision rested on two grounds: 1) there was insufficient consideration for agreement, i.e., a mutual exchange of promises to arbitrate; 2) the requirement of a neutral forum was not met.

Briefly, the case involved an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Maryland state law, alleging that the plaintiff was unfairly terminated for engaging in a romantic relationship with a subordinate, when, despite a company policy forbidding such relationships, she alleges several of her male counterparts engaged in sexual relations with their subordinates and never were reprimanded. The plaintiff’s action also alleged negligence, wrongful discharge and breach of contract.

Upon her hiring, the plaintiff was required to sign a Problem Support Policy Acknowledgement and Agreement (“PSP”), which stated it was “‘a valid and binding legal obligation … in consideration of [her] hiring for employment or [her] continued employment … .’” The PSP stated it was a “procedure” to be used by “‘[a]nyone who feels they have a problem that requires management’s attention.’” The court provided a pointed criticism of what it characterized as an unbalanced agreement: “The PSP is entirely one-directional, binding employees to dispute resolution procedures …. but silent on [the employer’s] obligations to do anything other than “facilitate” this process in the event an employee submits a ‘problem’ to management.”

The “binding arbitration” provision in the company’s PSP stated:

Human Resources will provide a list of qualified Arbitrators upon a formal request to move to this step. … The rules of the arbitration will be subject to the Federal Arbitration Act and agreed to by both parties. … [Employer] will assume responsibility for the costs of the Arbitrator. If the [employee] decides to have their attorney present, the cost of that attorney will be the responsibility of the [employee]. After the meeting, the Arbitrator will submit a decision in writing and this decision shall be final.

The court found the arbitration provision defective and unenforceable because by giving the employer exclusive control over the list of arbitrators, it denied one party (the employee) access to a neutral, arbitral forum. The court also stated that the arbitration provision was too vague with regard to establishing rules by which arbitration would be conducted. (The provision does state that arbitration rules would be subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, but the FAA does not establish rules.)

While the court addressed the potential for bias where one party has the authority to limit the arbitrator selection process, something not discussed is the exponential bias one might imply from the fact that the employer both circumscribed arbitrator selection and assumed sole responsibility for paying the arbitrator. Given this pairing of control and monetary power, the arbitrator could be viewed as the employer’s “hired gun.”

A link to the decision is here:

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Raglani%2016%20April%202013.pdf

New Fourth Circuit Opinion on Arbitration -- Appeal of Arbitrability Decision Divests Trial Court of Jurisdiction

I have addressed arbitration issues many times before on this Business Law Blog. They are important because so many agreements now contain mandatory arbitration clauses. On February 10, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in the case of Levin v. Alms and Associates, Inc. A copy of the decision can be found here. In this case, the appellate court held that when a trial court order regarding arbitrability of a dispute was appealed, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction and cannot continue on to handle the case until the appeal is resolved. The appellate court reversed the trial court which had allowed what it believed was the “non-arbitrable” portion of the case to go forward while the appeal was pending.

The appellate court also went on to decide that the trial court was wrong on the merits. That is, the appellate court held that the trial court was wrong to decide that certain claims were not subject to arbitration.

Before including an arbitration provision in your business agreements, you should be sure to consult with counsel to determine whether such a provision is in your interest and to discuss the scope and effect of such a provision.

More Arbitration Related Case Law - Arbitration Clause Not Enforceable

Another recent case, Henry v. Gateway, Inc., et. al., (No. 0537, September Term 2008, Issued August 31, 2009), shows that binding arbitration clauses are not always binding in Maryland. The case arose from plaintiff-appellant’s purchase of a Gateway computer at a local Best Buy retail store, and the subsequent malfunctioning of said computer. The computer came with a standard One Year Limited Warranty, the terms of which the consumer was required to agree to in order to render the computer operational. One of those terms was submission of all disputes to binding arbitration, which would be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et. seq. Disregarding the binding arbitration clause, plaintiff-appellant elected to file a complaint in The Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County, alleging three state law claims: 1) breach of express warranty; 2) breach of implied warranty; and 3) violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection law, Md. Code (1975, 2005 Repl. Vol.), Commercial Law Article §§13-101 et seq. In addition, there was one federal claim: violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et. seq. The Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County ruled in favor of defendant-appellee, dismissing plaintiff-appellant’s state law claims (with prejudice) and ordering the arbitration of said claims.

On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland ruled that the binding arbitration clause in the consumer contract was unenforceable given a 2007 ruling by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, Koons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobach, 398 Md. 38 (2007). In Koons Ford, the Court of Appeals held that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act supersedes the Federal Arbitration Act, so that a litigant advancing a federal warranty claim cannot be forced to resolve his or her claim through binding arbitration.

Further, the contract in Henry had a South Dakota choice-of-law designation. The choice-of-law question was whether, in the absence of a controlling decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, and given the divided nature of the relevant federal precedent, a Maryland Court is bound to apply a contractual choice-of-law rule that has the effect of interpreting federal law in a way inconsistent with a decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The Court of Special Appeals answered with a resounding no, finding that it would be contrary to the fundamental policy of the state (as embodied in Article 2 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and a 1979 case, Pope v. State) for a Maryland court to apply a choice-of-law provision that conflicts with the state’s highest court’s interpretation of federal law.

The Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County ruling was reversed and the case was remanded to that court for further proceedings. The Court of Special Appeals ordered that all costs be covered by defendant-appellant.

It just goes to show that what is written in a contract is not always an accurate reflection of a consumer’s actual rights and/or potential recourse.

Interesting Developments in Anti-Spam Law – Gordon v. Virtumundo – CAN-SPAM Preempts Washington State Anti-Spam Law Causes of Action

The law in regard to CAN-SPAM’s preemption of state law causes of action continues to develop. On May 15, 2007, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle decided the case of Gordon v. Virtumundo, Case No.: 06-00204, the Court held that CAN-SPAM preempted a plaintiff’s claims under Washington State’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act: WASH. REV. CODE §§19.190.010–.110. The Court relied, in part, on the decision of the Fourth Circuit in the Omega World Travel v. Mummagraphics case. The Court specifically held that:

This Court agrees with the Omega court's assessment of congressional purpose as well as its preemption holding. Applying the Omega analysis here, the Court finds the following. Plaintiffs' allegations here are that “from addresses” ending, for example, with “vm-mail.com” do not suffice to make the header not false or misleading because they require one to figure out to whom or what “vmmail.com” refers-i.e., the message is not obviously from “Virtumundo.” The parties agree that identification can be achieved by reverse-look-up using, for example, the “WHOIS” database, which “is an Internet program that allows users to query a database of people and other Internet entities, such as domains, networks, and hosts.” Definitions, Implementation, and Reporting Requirements Under the CAN-SPAM Act; Proposed Rule, 70 Fed.Reg. 25,426, 25,446 n. 233 (May 12, 2005). The WHOIS database is maintained by domain registrars and “includes the registrant's company name, address, phone number, and e-mail address.” Id. Plaintiffs do not dispute that WHOIS data can identify Defendants, and they have pointed to no e-mails that fail to provide information useful to a correct WHOIS look-up. Plaintiffs instead contend that this extra step should not be required of consumers. Regardless of the merits of that argument, the Court cannot find that “from addresses” ending with a domain that facilitates an accurate identification of Defendants could in any sense be found “false” or “deceptive.” Accordingly, while claims actually alleging falsity or deception under CEMA would not be preempted, Plaintiffs' claims here-for, at best, “incomplete” or less than comprehensive information-are for immaterial errors that may not be litigated under state law. Plaintiffs have not raised any issues of material fact that could prove Defendants' e-mails materially “false or deceptive” as those terms are used in the CAN-SPAM Act. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' CEMA claims are preempted by CAN-SPAM.

It seems that a consensus is building in regard to CAN-SPAM’s preemption of state law causes of action that are not based on traditional fraud claims of actual injury suffered by the plaintiff seeking to enforce the law.

Business Litigation - New Case on CAN-SPAM's Preemption of State Anti-Spam Law Claims

Another case in the burgeoning case law in regard to CAN-SPAM’s preemption of state law claims for alleged spamming activity has been decided. In Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., decided on May 23, 2007 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Court held that a plaintiff’s claims that he received 11 emails advertising Vonage’s telephone service in violation of the California Business and Professions Code Section 17529.5 were preempted by CAN-SPAM.

Specifically, the Court held that Kleffman’s claims were “clearly preempted” because “He does not allege a traditional tort theory at all, or even that he was at any point misle[d] by any of the eleven Vonage emails.”

The decision is based on reasoning similar to that set forth in the case of Omega World Travel v. Mummagraphics see earlier post here a 2006 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (which is the Federal Appeals Court for, inter alia, Maryland and Virginia). Even though the Kleffman Court’s opinion relied on the same underlying authorities as the Mummagraphics opinion, the Court distinguished Mummagraphics and seemed to try and limit its holding. The Kleffman case is now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A copy of the Court’s opinion will be made available soon.

Business Law and Litigation - New Maryland Case Law on Accountant Client Privilege

In an important case for Maryland businesses, accountants and lawyers, the Maryland Court of Appeals on Friday July 27, 2007, Court held that there is no exception to the Maryland Accountant-Client Privilege, Maryland Code Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article Section 9-110 in cases involving alleged fraudulent conveyances. BAA, PLC v. Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Company, ___ A.2d ___ (Md. July 27, 2007). A copy of the opinion can be found at the Maryland Judiciary Website HERE.

In so deciding, the Court of Appeals specifically overruled a long-standing Court of Special Appeals opinion, Dixon v. Bennett, 72 Md.App. 620, 531 A.2d 1318 (1987), cert. denied, 311 Md. 557, 536 A.2d 664 (1988).

Business Law - Commercial Landlord & Tenant - Modification of Lease/Contract

In a recent case I represented a small business here in Rockville that had operated a restaurant in a local shopping center in Maryland. The restaurant had been a tenant in the shopping center pursuant to a detailed written lease for the previous ten years or more. The lease required that rent be paid by check mailed to the landlord’s office due by the 5th day of each month. The lease provided that there would be a late fee (5% of the rent payment) and interest (at 24% per year) on late payments.

During the course of the lease, however, the landlord came into my client’s restaurant and told my client that my client should no longer mail his rent checks to the landlord, and that, instead, my client should give the landlord the rent checks when the landlord came to the shopping center. From that time on, my client had followed the landlord’s instructions and paid the landlord during the landlord’s periodic (usually monthly) visits to the restaurant, which were rarely before the 5th day of any month.

After many years of this method of rent payment, my client decided to move his business from Maryland to Virginia. My client told the landlord of his intention and the landlord immediately told my client that my client owed a significant sum of money for late fees and interest under the lease because the rent payments were always late when the landlord came and picked them up. My client refused to pay interest and late fees and the parties went to court on that and many other issues.

In Court, the landlord argued entitlement to the late fees and interest denying that he requested the in-person rent payments and arguing that even if he did request that method of payment, the landlord’s alleged oral request for in-person late payments could not modify the lease’s requirement of payments by the 5th day of each month. The lease provided that it could not be modified by oral agreement, and that there would be no waiver of any of the terms of the lease unless that waiver was in writing.

In Court we argued that the landlord’s request for in-person payment and the parties’ practice of hand payment of rent was an enforceable oral modification of the lease. The Court agreed that if we could prove the oral agreement and the past practice, we could defeat the landlord’s claim for late fees and interest at trial. Our argument was based upon Hoffman v. Glock, 20 Md.App. 284, 288-289 (1974). In that case, the Court of Special Appeals held that: “Notwithstanding a written agreement that any change to a contract must be in writing, the parties by subsequent oral agreement and by their conduct may waive the requirements of a written contract.” Ultimately, the landlord could not prove the amount of late fees and interest at trial and agreed to walk-away from its claims.

Whether you are representing the landlord or the tenant it is important to know that this argument (oral modification to a written contract) can be made and that you cannot always count on the written lease, or any written contract, to preclude a party from arguing that the parties modified their contract by subsequent oral agreement.

Business Law - Important Clauses for Small Business Contracts - Funds Held in Trust for Contracting Partner

In some instances your company may have a business opportunity that it cannot contract for on its own and it needs the assistance of another company to help it pursue that opportunity. Oftentimes your company may be willing to agree to pay a percentage of the revenue received on the deal to the company that is providing its assistance. You may consider having the revenue flow through the company assisting your company. That company can receive 100% of the funds from the customer and agree to send you 98% of those funds, keeping a 2% fee for its services. If the revenue flows through the company assisting your company you can run into a serious problem: What happens where the company assisting you receives payment from the customer, and then promptly files for bankruptcy before paying you your 98% of the revenue on the deal?

There is no easy answer to this question. If you do nothing, then the revenues received by your business partner will be a fund for the creditors of your bankrupt business partner, and you will be an unsecured creditor and unhappily receive pennies on the dollar, if anything.

One way to protect against such a catastrophe is to include “trust fund” language in your agreement with your business partner. If the funds in question are “trust funds,” then that can be excluded from the bankruptcy and paid over to your company. Specifically, if your company is XYZ Company and your partner is Partner Company, and you have agreed to pay Partner Company 2% of the revenue received by it, an example of such language could be:

Partner Company agrees that all funds received by it from the customer are to be received as trust funds, and are to be held in trust for the benefit of XYZ Company. Partner Company shall not have any beneficial interest in the funds received from the customer except to the extent of 2% of the funds received.

While such a clause is no guarantee that you will be safe in the bankruptcy situation, it will certainly be helpful in your effort to protect your business. A case illustrating the "trust fund" situation is Holmes Environmental, Inc., 287 B.R. 363 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 2002). In that case, the Court reviewed the state of the law in Virginia in regard to the exclusion of property from the bankruptcy estate under trust theory. Specifically, in Holmes, the Court held that funds that were held in a trust created by the debtor were not property of the debtor’s estate. In so holding, the court quoted Old Republic Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. Tyler (In re Dameron), 155 F.3d 718 (4th Cir. 1998), as follows:

Virginia law recognizes three basic forms of trust. Of these, the two that are potentially relevant to the instant case are the express (or actual) trust and the constructive trust. An express trust is created when the parties affirmatively manifest an intention that certain property be held in trust for the benefit of a third party. An express trust may be created "without the use of technical words." All that is necessary are words, or circumstances, "which unequivocally show an intention that the legal estate was vested in one person, to be held in some manner or for some purpose on behalf of another ...,". In contrast to an express trust, a constructive trust "arise[s] by operation of law, independently of the intention of the parties...." Such trusts "occur not only where the property has been acquired by a fraud or improper means, but also where it has been fairly and properly acquired, but it is contrary to the principles of equity that it should be retained...." With either form of trust, Virginia law recognizes the beneficiary as "equitable owner of the trust property." Holmes, 287 B.R. at 375 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

While we have not litigated this issue through to a court decision, because of language in our client's contracts, we have been able to argue the issue and reach a favorable settlement in a bankruptcy case where our client would otherwise have lost more than $300,000.00. Before contracting to pay another company to be involved in an important business deal, you should always have counsel assist you in the process of developing agreements that protect your interests.