SDNY Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration of Employee’s Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

In Marino v. CVS Health, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found defendant CVS Health’s “arbitration of workplace legal disputes policy” and related arbitration agreement compelled arbitration of the plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims based on her pregnancy.

Sarah Marino was employed as a pharmacist at CVS beginning in 2012 and became a pharmacy manager after her first child was born in 2017. After her second child was born in April 2020, Marino took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) but alleged that she was forced to work without pay during her leave, and was ultimately forced to terminate her employment in January 2023 in retaliation for her complaints about poor treatment and working conditions.

Marino brought claims in the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the FMLA, the New York State Human Rights Law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York labor laws. CVS moved to compel arbitration and stay Marino’s action. In support of its motion, CVS relied on its arbitration of workplace legal disputes policy and arbitration agreement, which included a provision that all disputes covered by the policy would be decided by a single arbitrator and governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), including claims of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Marino participated in online training addressing the policy in 2014 and did not exercise the option to opt out of the arbitration agreement included in the policy within 30 days. She opposed the motion to compel, contending she had no choice but to sign the training acknowledgment, and the terms of the arbitration agreement were “buried” or “submerged” in the training presentation. Marino also argued she was a “worker engaged in interstate commerce” and thus exempt from the FAA.

The court rejected both arguments, concluding that the 30-day opt-out provision “negates any suggestion” that she was forced to enter into the arbitration agreement. The court also held that “only a worker in a transportation industry can be classified as a transportation worker” under the FAA and, since CVS does not operate in the transportation industry, Marino did not satisfy the statutory exclusion under the FAA for transportation workers. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case.

Marino v. CVS Health, No. 7:23-cv-00784 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2023).