Originally from:

Journal of American Arbitration (JAA) - Vol. 3, No. 2

Preview Page

ARTICLES

The Sixth Circuit Finds an Employment
Arbitration Agreement Insufficient to
Effectively Vindicate an Employee’s Title VII
Claims Because of the Employer’s Exclusive
Control Over Selection of Potential Arbitrators
By Justine P. Avtjoglou

I. OVERVIEW
Wendy McMullen was hired as a store detective for Meijer, Inc., in
its Flint, Michigan store in 1989. When McMullen was hired, Meijer
“provided her with a copy of an employee handbook describing . . . [a
termination appeal procedure] and the company’s policy of terminating
employees only with ‘just cause.’” The terms “establish[ed] a two-step
procedure requiring binding arbitration of all disputes arising out of
termination of employment” under the American Arbitration Association
(AAA). Also, it “grant[ed] Meijer the right to unilaterally select a pool
of at least five arbitrators.” Approximately nine years later, after “an
incident involving her pursuit and confrontation of a juvenile shoplifter
in the store parking lot,” McMullen was given the choice two
disciplinary actions for her violation of store policy: “demotion with a
33% decrease in salary, or outright termination.” McMullen chose
termination and challenged the disciplinary actions through Meijer’s
internal termination appeal procedure (TAP), alleging gender
discrimination in violation of Title VII. After hearing arguments during
the proceedings, “Meijer denied [McMullen’s] appeal internally and
informed her that, ‘[i]f you would like to contest the results of this further
review, you must request an arbitration hearing . . . .’” (omissions in the
original). McMullen then filed a request for an arbitration proceeding.
The day before the arbitration began, McMullen sued in state court