Torres-Rosario v. Mariott International

Citations: 872 F. Supp. 2d 149; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92999; 2012 WL 2583368Docket: Civil No. 11-1875 (FAB)

Court: District Court, D. Puerto Rico; July 5, 2012; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Spa. Casino's motion to dismiss plaintiff Leticia Torres-Rosario's claims and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act has been granted, resulting in the dismissal of Torres' claims without prejudice. Torres filed a complaint on September 5, 2011, alleging violations of federal and state anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, due to her termination from employment on June 12, 2010, after working at Ritz-Carlton from February 4, 2004. Torres, who was employed as a waitress and promoted to Head Waitress and trainer, claimed she consistently excelled in performance evaluations.

The incident leading to her termination occurred on May 21, 2010, when Torres reported a missing payment during a busy period. She was instructed by her manager, Berta Hernandez, to misassign the receipt and search for the payment later. On June 4, 2010, Torres learned that a 'mystery shopper' had reported the missing payment, which was alleged to have been given to her colleague, Matos. Despite explaining the situation to the director, Omar Vega, Torres was ultimately terminated while Matos remained employed. 

Torres filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC on June 30, 2010, which found reasonable cause for her claims. After unsuccessful conciliation efforts, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on June 6, 2011. Torres claims to have suffered from various mental health issues and financial distress due to her termination and seeks $7,300,000 in damages.

On December 16, 2011, Ritz-Carlton filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). According to Local Rule 7(b), a party opposing a motion must file a written objection with a legal memorandum within fourteen days of service. Failure to do so waives any objections, and the court may dismiss the action for unexcused non-response, as established in ITI Holdings, Inc. v. Odom. Plaintiff Torres did not file a timely opposition, thus waiving her objections to Ritz-Carlton's motion.

The FAA supports the validity and enforceability of written arbitration agreements, allowing them to be enforced unless legally or equitably revocable. It mandates district courts to compel arbitration when a valid agreement exists, limiting their discretion. The existence of such an agreement requires mutual consent to arbitrate claims, as clarified in McCarthy v. Azure. Furthermore, there are four criteria for compelling arbitration: 1) a valid arbitration agreement must exist; 2) the moving party must be entitled to invoke it; 3) the other party must be bound by it; and 4) the claim must fall within its scope, as outlined in InterGen N.V. v. Grina.

The court references a similar case, Soto-Fonalledas v. Ritz-Carlton San Juan Hotel Spa, where the First Circuit upheld a motion to compel arbitration involving the same defendant and employee agreement. Ritz-Carlton presented a portion of the 'Employee Agreement,' which all employees must sign, acknowledging receipt and acceptance of its terms, including a stipulated three-step alternative dispute resolution process for workplace issues prior to legal action.

Ritz-Carlton employees must follow a three-step process for resolving workplace issues: 1) attempt resolution with supervisors, 2) seek help from a Peer Review Panel, and 3) request arbitration for disputes regarding terminations perceived as discriminatory or retaliatory. The arbitration clause is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), as established in Soto-Fonalledas and McCarthy v. Azure, supporting the submission of Title VII claims to arbitration. For Ritz-Carlton to invoke the arbitration clause, it must be a party to the agreement, which is confirmed by Torres' signature on the relevant document. The agreement binds Torres due to her electronic signature, establishing her acceptance of its terms as per Puerto Rico contract law. Additionally, Torres's claims are within the arbitration clause's scope, specifically addressing her alleged discriminatory discharge. Courts have a duty to compel arbitration if all four criteria are met, which they are in this case. Consequently, the Court grants Ritz-Carlton's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, dismissing Torres's complaint without prejudice and ordering both parties to arbitration.

Justin Rowinsky, a second-year student at Georgetown University Law Center, contributed to the Memorandum and Order. The Court identifies Torres as referring to Matos as both a "Server Attendant" and "assistant waiter," leading to the assumption that Matos was subordinate to Torres, who held the title of "Head Waitress." Torres described a missing payment as a "check," despite evidence that the payment was made in cash. Ritz-Carlton filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration on December 16, 2011 (Docket No. 7), while Torres submitted a motion to extend the opposition submission deadline on January 4, 2012 (Docket No. 8), which the Court denied on January 9, 2012 (Docket No. 9). No further motions were filed by Torres. Both this case and Soto-Fonalledas present the same "Ritz-Carlton Employee Agreement" as evidence, with Docket No. 7-1 of this case containing an arbitration provision identical to that in Soto-Fonalledas v. Ritz-Carlton San Juan Hotel Spa, Casino, Civil No. 09-2005.