In Palmer v. Starbucks Corporation et al, 23 Civ. 6951 (JPC), 2024 WL 2779032 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2024), the court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims and stayed the action pending arbitration.
From the decision:
Palmer has failed to show a genuine issue of material fact to warrant a summary trial on whether he entered into the Arbitration Agreement. Palmer presents no reason to question the integrity or accuracy of any of the detailed information in the Daly Affidavit regarding the employee application and onboarding process at Starbucks at the time of his application. In fact, Palmer’s evidence largely substantiates Starbucks’s position, as he concedes that he electronically filled out onboarding paperwork and acknowledges that the email address Starbucks claims to have used to confirm his execution of the Arbitration Agreement is his actual email. Palmer Declaration ¶¶ 2, 5. Palmer instead claims that he does not recall signing an agreement to arbitrate during the hiring and onboarding process. Id. ¶ 2. This stated lack of recollection of signing an arbitration agreement is insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact to warrant a trial. See Barrows, 36 F.4th at 51 (“Where a party merely states that she cannot recall signing an agreement (as opposed to denying she has done so), such a declaration ordinarily fails to create a triable issue of fact.” (citing F.D.I.C. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 205 F.3d 66, 75 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also Gonder v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 144 F. Supp. 3d 522, 528 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Nor does Palmer’s statement that he cannot find the confirmation email in his inbox create a genuine issue of material fact. See Palmer ¶ 5. Palmer’s Declaration is dated March 1, 2024, id. at 2; it is certainly understandable that he would not be able to find the April 2015 confirmation email nearly nine years after it would have been sent.
Based on this, the court held that defendants established that the parties entered into a contractually valid arbitration agreement, and further that the arbitration delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.