The only evidence Plaintiff submitted was his affidavit (Doc. # 22-1 at 5-25, # 22-2, # 6-1 at 4-22) and the transcript of Cohen's telephone deposition (Doc. # 22-1 at 1-4) the arbitration agreement and other documents Plaintiff allegedly signed (Docs. # 6-1 at 1-3) an affidavit from Michael Dunkin, a Branch Administrator for Defendant (Doc. Defendant submitted the following evidence in support of its arguments: a declaration from Roy Cohen, the Human Resources Business Partner for Defendant (Doc. Defendant argues that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate all employment-related disputes by executing the "We Listen" Acknowledgment Form on Februand signing the Handbook Acknowledgment Form on February 10, 2010. # 21), seeking to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) and sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. On January 12, 2012, Defendant renewed its Motion to Dismiss (Doc. The court terminated Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, allowing Defendant to renew its Motion once limited discovery was completed.ĭefendant asserts that it has been incorrectly named in this lawsuit its proper name is "TruGreen Limited Partnership." The court conducted a motion docket on Septemand with the parties' agreement, directed the parties to engage in limited discovery on whether Plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff responded that he does not remember seeing or signing the agreement and does not believe that the signatures on the documents are his. # 6), arguing that Plaintiff's claims are subject to arbitration because Plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement for all employment-related disputes. On July 26, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
§ 2000e, et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Graham initiated this suit against his former employer, Defendant Trugreen Landcare of Alabama, LLC, alleging discrimination claims based on race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. # 21) is due to be denied for the reasons set out below. Having considered the briefs and evidentiary submissions, the court finds that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment has been fully briefed. # 21) throughout this opinion as a Motion for Summary Judgment.
The court will refer to Defendant's Motion (Doc. By agreement of the parties at the Aptelephone conference, the court determined that it would treat Defendant's Motion as a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This case is before the court on Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
0 kommentar(er)
