A former executive and in-house lawyer for the Miami Heat basketball franchise sued the team for allegedly violating her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act when she was terminated from her employment. The Heat filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the plaintiff opposed. First, the plaintiff contended that the arbitrability of the dispute was for the court, not the arbitrator. The court disagreed, holding that, while the agreement did not contain an express delegation clause, the agreement's incorporation of the American Arbitration Association rules served to delegate the issues regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement to the arbitrator.
The plaintiff also argued that the agreement was void as against public policy, contending that the agreement's provisions for the arbitrator to award reasonable fees to the prevailing party and for each party to be responsible for one-half of any administrative costs imposed by the AAA precluded her from vindicating her complete rights under the FMLA. Although the court did not need to decide this issue - having already found that arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator - the court found that even if the fees and costs provision was unenforceable due to a failure to provide the plaintiff with remedies fully consistent with the FMLA, the provision was not the essence of the parties' agreement and was therefore severable.
The plaintiff also contended that the agreement was unconscionable because the Heat allegedly did not permit her time to review the agreement, seek legal counsel, or negotiate the terms. The court rejected this argument finding that the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to "explain any specific reason she felt rushed to sign the agreement, had no ability to negotiate it, or lacked employment alternatives." The court further rejected the plaintiff's argument that the agreement was substantively unconscionable because it required her to arbitrate all her claims, "while only requiring the Defendant to arbitrate counterclaims that it 'is or should be aware [of] at the time a demand for arbitration is made.'" The court explained that the plaintiff overlooked the provision in the agreement that required "that any claims 'arising in the workplace environment' be subject to arbitration." "Certainly," the court concluded, the agreement was not "outrageously unfair" and did not "otherwise shock the judicial conscience." The court compelled arbitration and dismissed the case.
Yakovee v. Miami Heat L.P., No. 1:20-cv-20540 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2020).
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
Perspectives on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice.
Recent Posts
Editorial Contacts
Shareholder
Shareholder
Of Counsel
Shareholder
Shareholder
