In Hamlin v. 1 Tyger LLC, No. 659803/2025, 2026 WL 1365454 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 11, 2026), the court granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of his employment discrimination claims.
From the decision:
CPLR § 7503(a) provides that a party may move for an order staying an action and compelling arbitration. If there is no question that the arbitration agreement is valid, and the claim is not barred by the statute of limitation, CPLR § 7503(a) directs the Court to compel the parties to arbitrate. An arbitration agreement which establishes the parties “clear, explicit and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate” will be enforced (Dewald v Massachusetts Mut. Ins. Co., 237 AD3d 562 [1st Dept 2025] quoting God’s Battalion of Prayer Pentecostal Church, Inc. v Miele Assoc., LLP, 6 NY3d 371, 374 [2006]).
Section 1 and 2 of the Arbitration Agreement provide:
1. The Company and Employee (collectively, “Parties”) mutually agree that any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to Employee’s employment relationship with the Company, which could have been brought in a court of law (“Covered Disputes”), shall be settled by arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) under its National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes. Judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
2. Covered Disputes shall be defined as all grievances, disputes, claims, or causes of action that otherwise could be brought in a federal, state, or local court under applicable federal, state, or local laws, that arose in the past or arise in the present or the future out of or relating to your employment with the Company and the termination thereof, including claims you may have against the Company or against its officers, directors, supervisors, managers, employees, or agents in their capacity as such or otherwise, or that the Company may have against you as an employee. Claims not covered by this Agreement include those arising out of or relating to workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, claims of sexual harassment, or any other disputes, as a matter of law, that an employee and an employer cannot arbitrate.
Applying the law, the court held that:
As the plain language of sections 1 and 2 of the Arbitration Agreement set forth the parties’ “clear, explicit and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate” all claims arising out of Mr. Hamlin’s employment and termination, and Mr. Hamlin has not challenged the validity of the Arbitration agreement or raised a limitations argument, the parties’ agreement should be enforced, and CPLR § 7503(a) requires this Court to stay this proceeding and compel arbitration (Bay Anesthesia, P.C. v Zegelstein, 194 AD2d 397 [1st Dept 1993]).
Furthermore, the court held that plaintiff’s employment discrimination are not, as a matter of law, non-arbitrable.