Originally from World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR)

Preview Page

TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

RULES ALL CLAIMS RELATING TO A
PREVIOUSLY ARBITRATED DISPUTE ARE
PRECLUDED

In Lewis v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.,1 the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that, because the plaintiff already arbitrated his retaliatory
discharge claims, a subsequent case bringing the same claim was barred by
claim preclusion. The court found that, by proceeding with arbitration
without objection, the plaintiff waived his argument that the arbitration
agreement was invalid under contract law. The court also found the
plaintiff’s contention that the arbitrator’s decision was contrary to public
policy meritless. The court, however, ruled against imposing sanctions
against the plaintiff and his counsel.

Michael Lewis became an employee of Circuit City Stores, Inc. in
September 1996. His application included an arbitration agreement, which
provided for the resolution of all claims arising out of his application or
employment with Circuit City “exclusively by final and binding arbitration
before a neutral Arbitrator.”2 The arbitration agreement covered any
conflicts arising under any federal, state, or local statutory or common law.

In particular, the arbitration agreement provided that “[s]tatutory or common
law claims alleging that Circuit City retaliated or discriminated against an
Associate shall be subject to arbitration.”3 Circuit City devised its own
arbitration procedures, and Lewis agreed that he was aware of those
procedures and would submit to them. The arbitration procedures specified
that although the disputes would be settled in accordance with the
substantive laws of the State in which Lewis was employed, “decisions and
awards would be enforceable through the Federal Arbitration Act.”4

In 1997, Lewis injured his knee while working and filed a workers’
compensation claim. Lewis claims that in November of 2002 he notified his
supervisor in writing that he still suffered pain from the injury and requested
to see a medical specialist, but received no response. Lewis asserted that,
following his request, his supervisor became hostile towards him, and
ultimately fired Lewis on January 6, 2003. Thus, Lewis claims that he was
fired in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim.