Chandler v. Int'l Bus. MacHs. Corp. ( 2023 )

22-1733
Chandler v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
3 New York, on the 4th day of August, two thousand twenty-three.
4
5 PRESENT:
6 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 MICHAEL H. PARK,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 _____________________________________
11
12 William Chandler,
13
14 Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16 v.
17
18 International Business Machines Corporation, 22-1733
19
20 Defendant-Appellee.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN (Thomas Fowler,
24 on the brief), Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.,
25 Boston, MA.
26
27 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: TRACI L. LOVITT, Jones Day (Anthony J.
28 Dick, Jones Day, Washington, DC; Matthew
29 W. Lampe, Erika D. Cagney, Jones Day,
30 New York, NY; J. Benjamin Aguiñaga,
31 Jones Day, Dallas, TX, on the brief), New
32 York, NY.
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
2 New York (Koeltl, J.).
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
4 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s motion to unseal
5 is DENIED.
6 Plaintiff is a former employee of International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”),
7 who sued to invalidate two provisions in the arbitration agreement he signed when he was
8 terminated. On appeal, he raises substantially the same issues as the plaintiffs in several related
9 appeals. 1 We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its decision,
10 see Chandler v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 21-CV-6319, 2022 WL 2473340 (S.D.N.Y. July 6,
11 2022), and for the reasons stated in our opinion in the related appeal, In re IBM Arb. Agreement
12 Litig., No. 22-1728 (2d Cir. Aug. 4, 2023).
13 We have considered all of Plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without
14 merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s
15 motion to unseal is DENIED as moot.
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
18
1
See In re IBM Arb. Agreement Litig., No. 22-1728; Lodi v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 22-1737;
Tavenner v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 22-2318.
2