In Cruz v. Nusret New York LLC, No. 157935/2021, 2023 WL 6126229, at *1 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Aug. 29, 2023) – a case in which plaintiff asserts causes of action for gender and nationality-based discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws – the court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration – even though the defendant did not provide a signed arbitration agreement.
From the decision:
That defendant did not provide a signed arbitration agreement is not dispositive on a motion to compel. The Court of Appeals has made clear that, although CPLR 7501 confers jurisdiction on courts to enforce written arbitration agreements, there is no requirement that the writing be signed so long as there is other proof that the parties agreed to arbitrate. (God’s Battalion of Prayer Pentecostal Church, Inc. v Miele Assoc., LLP, 6 NY3d 371, 374 [2006].) In the absence of a written agreement, the proper inquiry is whether outside evidence establishes the parties’ “clear, explicit, and unequivocal” agreement to arbitrate. (Id., citing Waldron v Goddess, 61 NY2d 181, 183 [1984]; Weissman v Revel Transit, Inc., 190 NYS3d 46, 47 [1st Dept 2023].) Under this standard, when defendant’s evidence is viewed in its entirety, it becomes clear that defendant has established a mutual agreement to arbitrate that is clear, explicit, and unequivocal.
Several factors are critical to the Court’s determination. As manager of defendant’s New York location during plaintiff’s employment, Ilbuga explained that all new hires would run through an “onboarding process,” whereby an employee in defendant’s Human Resources department would review the offer letter, employment handbook, arbitration agreement, etc., with the new hire. (NYSCEF doc. no. 19 at ¶ 4.) He testified that, once this was done, defendant’s standard operating procedure was that the new employee would be required to sign each document, whether electronically or in the presence of a member of the human resource team. (Id. at 6-7.) According to him, defendant would not have permitted new hires to begin working until they had signed the arbitration agreement. (Id. at ¶ 10.) And Ilbuga’s testimony that the arbitration agreement was central to plaintiff’s employment is supported by the offering letter, which explicitly states, “You acknowledge that this Offer and the Arbitration Agreement contain the entire agreement of the parties.”
Accordingly the court held that the various applicable factors warranted granting the motion, noting that “[t]o deny defendant’s motion to compel, then, would be to interfere with the parties’ contract simply on grounds that defendant can no longer locate the signed agreement.”