Discrimination Lawsuit Proceeds Despite Arbitration Clause

Plaintiffs bringing a class action lawsuit against Avon for denying their rights to breast pump have been allowed to continue in court rather than in arbitration.

 Avon was unsuccessful in arguing that the claims of discrimination should be decided in an arbitration. Plaintiff Caroline Ruiz asserts that when she was hired by Avon in November, she signed an employment agreement and a mandatory arbitration clause.  After a delayed start, Ms. Ruiz requested and signed a new Employment Agreement in December, which states that the forum for legal disputes is in New York courts, and no new mandatory arbitration clause. Avon claims that the original Employment Agreement, signed in November, and the mandatory arbitration clause also signed in November, control because the only material difference between the two Employment Agreements is the start date. A federal judge ruled that, pursuant to well-established New York law, a subsequent contract regarding the same matter will supersede the prior contract. Barnum v. Millbrook Care , 850 F. Supp. 1227, 1236 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Therefore, the December Employment Agreement supersedes the arbitration agreement signed in November, and the lawsuit against Avon continues, although class certification has not yet been decided.

The New York State Legislature recently reformed the State Human Rights Law, expanding the prohibition of mandatory arbitration clauses from sexual harassment claims (passed in 2018) to all discrimination claims. This law goes into effect on October 11, 2019, and all employment contracts drafted after that date must comply with this provision. Still, the applicability of arbitration clauses continues to be heavily litigated.

Written by Law Clerk Emily Entwistle