Staten v. Home Care Services, Inc. ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION AARON STATEN, Plaintiff, Case No. 21-cv-11323 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. HOME CARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 4) WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND (2) SETTING MATTER FOR TRIAL ON WHETHER TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Plaintiff Aaron Staten is a former employee of Defendant Home Care Services, Inc. d/b/a KabaFusion (“KabaFusion”). (See Compl., ECF No. 3-1, PageID.16.) On April 23, 2021, Staten filed this employment discrimination action against KabaFusion in the Wayne County Circuit Court for the State of Michigan. (See Compl., ECF No. 3-1.) In his Complaint, Staten alleged, among other things, that KabaFusion unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of his sex, in violation of federal and state law. (See id., PageID.19-29.) On June 4, 2021, KabaFusion removed Staten’s action to this Court. (See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 3.) On June 11, 2021, KabaFusion moved to dismiss Staten’s action on the ground that Staten was required to submit his claims to mandatory arbitration. (See Mot., ECF No. 4.) In support of its motion, KabaFusion alleged that Staten “expressly agreed to submit any and all disputes and claims relating to his employment to binding arbitration.” (Id., PageID.47.) KabaFusion presented evidence from its employee records purporting to show that Staten acknowledged and signed KabaFusion’s Arbitration Agreement. (See Arb. Agreement, ECF No. 4-1.) Staten filed a response in opposition. (See Resp., ECF No. 7.) In support of his response, Staten submitted an affidavit (the “Staten Affidavit”) denying having ever seen or signed KabaFusion’s Arbitration Agreement. (See Staten Aff., ECF No. 8.) In relevant part, the Staten Affidavit states as follows: 4. I have reviewed Kabafusion's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 4) and the attachments thereto. 5. I was never presented nor signed an Arbitration Agreement with Kabafusion. I have never even seen the document purporting to bear my “signature.” 6. At the time I was hired, Kabafusion was in a rush to find sufficient staffing and the onboarding process was expedited. I never went through any formal orientation with Kabafusion's Human Resources department. 7. I never used a computer at Kabafusion's office. (Id., PageID.187.) KabaFusion filed a reply on July 13, 2021. (See Reply, ECF No. 9.) On July 13, 2021, the Court ordered a round of supplemental briefing in light of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Boykin v. Family Dollar, 3 F.4th 832 (6th Cir. 2021). (See Order, ECF No. 10.) Staten filed his supplemental brief on July 20, 2021 (see Supp’l Br., ECF No. 12); KabaFusion filed its supplemental brief on July 27, 2021 (see Supp’l Br., ECF No. 13). The Court set a hearing on KabaFusion’s motion for December 20, 2021. (See Notice, ECF No. 14.) The Court now concludes that it does not need to hold a hearing on KabaFusion’s motion and that it must deny KabaFusion’s motion without prejudice. Under Boykin, Staten is entitled to a trial on the question of whether he may be compelled to arbitrate because his affidavit is sufficient to create a material factual dispute as to whether (1) he entered into an agreement to arbitrate and/or (2) continued to work for KabaFusion after learning that his employment was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE KabaFusion’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) and will cancel the hearing set previously for December 20, 2021. The Court concludes instead that the issue of whether Staten may be compelled to arbitrate must be resolved by a trial at which the Court will resolve the factual dispute as to whether Staten (1) entered into an agreement to arbitrate and/or (2) continued to work for KabaFusion after learning that his employment was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement. The Court will hold a status conference with the parties to set a trial date. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: December 16, 2021 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on December 16, 2021, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (810) 341-9764