Coats v. Kiehart ( 1998 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    LORENZO W. COATS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    No. 97-1534
    DANIEL P. KIEHART; MICHAEL P.
    SHEETZ; DUKE UNIVERSITY,
    INCORPORATED; ROBERT WINFREE,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-94-292, CA-94-293, CA-94-294, CA-94-295)
    Submitted: May 28, 1998
    Decided: July 31, 1998
    Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Lorenzo W. Coats, Appellant Pro Se. John Morgan Simpson, Joseph
    Walker, FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, Washington, D.C., for Appel-
    lees.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Lorenzo W. Coats appeals the district court's order denying his
    motion to vacate an arbitration award, granting Defendant's motion
    to confirm arbitration, and dismissing with prejudice his employment
    discrimination claims. We affirm the order of the district court.
    First, we find that Coats' unsupported allegations that Duke Uni-
    versity's arbitration policy discriminates against blacks are insuffi-
    cient to merit relief. See Simpson v. Welch, 
    900 F.2d 33
    , 35 (4th Cir.
    1990). Further, to the extent that Coats avers that statutory claims are
    not arbitrable, he is mistaken. See Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass
    Container, Inc., 
    78 F.3d 875
    , 885-86 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    65 U.S.L.W. 3351
     (U.S. Nov. 12, 1996) (No. 96-337). Next, we find
    unavailing Coats' claim that he was not an employee of Duke Univer-
    sity and therefore was not subject to arbitration. The record reveals
    that Coats admitted to being employed by Duke and receiving
    employee benefits from Duke. Moreover, because Coats voluntarily
    availed himself of the arbitration procedure, he cannot now claim that
    there was no arbitration agreement. See Orion Pictures Corp. v. Writ-
    ers Guild of Am., W., Inc., 
    946 F.2d 722
    , 725-26 (9th Cir. 1991).
    Finally, to the extent that Coats claims he was coerced into arbitrating
    his claims because he did not know that by registering for employee
    benefits he agreed to arbitration, his claim is without merit. See
    Stedor Enters., Ltd. v. Armtex, Inc., 
    947 F.2d 727
    , 733 (4th Cir.
    1991); see also Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 
    500 U.S. 20
    ,
    33 (1991).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with
    oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2