McGriff v. VyStar Credit Union

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00070
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

EBONI MCGRIFF,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:25-cv-70-TJC-LLL v.

VYSTAR CREDIT UNION,

Defendant. /

ORDER Plaintiff Eboni McGriff’s amended complaint contains six counts: sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) (Count I); sex discrimination under Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA) (Count II); violation of the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act (FCCPA) (Count III); conversion (Count IV), retaliation in violation of Title VII (Count V); and retaliation in violation of FCRA (Count VI). (Doc. 8). Defendant VyStar Credit Union’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings argues that the entire case should be sent to arbitration because all of Plaintiff’s claims arise out of, affect, or relate to VyStar’s Membership and Account Agreement, which contains an arbitration provision. (Doc. 9). However, Plaintiff, inter alia, contends that her employment law claims—Counts I, II, V, and VI—have no connection to her customer accounts with VyStar, and therefore, are not governed by the arbitration provision. (Doc. 12; Doc. 20 at 3–4).

By its terms, the Membership and Account Agreement, which contains the arbitration provision and a delegation clause, governs the relationship between VyStar and its account holders. It has nothing to do with the relationship between VyStar and its employees. Thus, Counts I, II, V, VI, the employment law counts,

are not subject to arbitration. Counts III (FCCPA) and Count IV (conversion) are arguably subject to the arbitration provision. “When confronted with litigants advancing both arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims . . . courts have discretion to stay nonarbitrable claims.” Klay v. All

Defendants, 389 F.3d 1191, 1204 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 21 n. 23 (1983)) (other citations omitted). However, courts generally decline to stay proceedings of non-arbitrable claims when it is feasible to proceed with the litigation. Klay, 389 F.3d at 1204

(citations omitted). Crucial to this determination is whether arbitrable claims predominate or whether the outcome of the non-arbitrable claims will depend upon the arbitrator’s decision. Id. Here, it is feasible for the employment claims to proceed with litigation while

the Court considers the potentially arbitrable claims. This is primarily a suit about Plaintiff’s employment with VyStar; her status as a VyStar account holder is tangential. The potentially arbitrable claims do not predominate over the employment claims. Neither 1s the outcome the employment claims dependent on the arbitration decision. Thus, it is appropriate to bifurcate and proceed with the employment claims. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (Doc. 9) is DENIED as to Counts I, IT, V, and VI. 2. The Court DEFERS ruling on the motion to compel arbitration on Counts III and IV pending further consideration. No later than August 8, 2025, Plaintiffs will file a statement as to whether she will proceed with Counts III and IV. 3. Defendant should answer Counts I, II, V, and VI no later than August 8, 2025. The parties shall file a case management report as to these counts no later than August 8, 2025. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, the 22nd day of July, 2025.

LEE Timithey 9. Corvigon TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN STACI Senior United States District Judge

jced Copies: Counsel of record