The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s ruling ordering the two sides in a discrimination case to conduct discovery on whether the defendant, an insurance lead generation company, can force arbitration after an employee who underwent heart surgery was dismissed. The issue is that the motion to compel arbitration was filed based on a provision in the company’s employment agreement, which was not included as part of the original complaint nor attached to the complaint as an exhibit. This would make the agreement new evidence, that the appeals court ruled can not be introduced at this stage of the proceedings.
The Background: The plaintiff began his employment with the defendant on Sept. 7, 2021. Two weeks later, he began experiencing chest pains and was taken to the emergency room and then admitted. A triple bypass and valve replacement was performed and the plaintiff was discharged on October 3.
- The plaintiff informed the defendant of his admittance to the hospital when it happened. He was told by his supervisor to contact a different individual who did not respond to the plaintiff’s inquiries.
- A week later, the plaintiff again emailed his supervisor to inquire about disability accommodations. The defendant terminated his employment that day, but did not inform the plaintiff.
- Ten days later, the defendant contacted the plaintiff and asked him to return his equipment. The next day, when he asked why the defendant wanted the equipment back, the plaintiff was informed that he had been terminated because his inconveniently scheduled heart surgery led him to be in violation of the company’s attendance policies for new employees.
The Suit: The plaintiff filed suit in state court, alleging the defendant violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The complaint made no mention of the agreement.
- The defendant removed the case to federal court and sought to compel arbitration.
- The District Court judge denied the motion to compel because the agreement was not part of the original filing.
The Appeal: Because the employment agreement was not explicitly relied upon in the complaint and was not essential to the complaint or the claims made, the defendant’s arguments to include it at this stage of the proceedings fail the Appeals Court’s test, it ruled.