Miguel Orantes v. DG Retail LLC d/b/a Dollar General Store #21301

2023 DNH 141

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: November 7, 2023
• Docket: 23-cv-378-SE
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Miguel Orantes

v. Civil No. 23-cv-378-SE Opinion No. 2023 DNH 141 DG Retail LLC d/b/a Dollar General Store #21301

ORDER

Miguel Orantes filed discrimination and retaliation claims

against his employer, Dolgencorp, LLC1 (“Dollar General”), with

the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights (“Commission”) and

the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).

Dollar General subsequently removed Orantes’s case from the

Commission to state court, and then from state court to this

court. It now moves to compel arbitration of his claims under

the Dollar General Employee Arbitration Agreement (“Arbitration

Agreement”). Orantes, appearing pro se, objects and argues that

the court should not compel arbitration in his case. The court

agrees with Dollar General that the valid Arbitration Agreement,

which he signed, explicitly governs Orantes’s employment

1 Orantes named DG Retail LLC d/b/a Dollar General Store #21301 as the defendant in this case. However, in its motion to compel, Dollar General states that Dolgencorp, LLC is the proper defendant. See doc. no. 4 at 1. discrimination claims and therefore grants its motion to compel

arbitration.

Standard of Review

Except in “exceptional cases where the parties have

foregone the submission of record materials and have relied

solely on the pleadings to support or oppose [a] motion [to

compel arbitration],” the applicable standard of review is the

same as on a motion for summary judgment. Rodriguez-Rivera v.

Allscripts Healthcare Sols., Inc., 43 F.4th 150, 168 n.15 (1st

Cir. 2022). Because deciding Dollar General’s motion to compel

requires reference to the Arbitration Agreement, this is not one

of those “exceptional cases.” Id. Therefore, the court reviews

the record to determine whether there is a “genuine dispute as

to any material fact” relating to arbitration that would

preclude granting judgment to Dollar General as a matter of law.

Rosen v. Genesis Healthcare, LLC, No. 20-CV-1059-PB, 2021 WL

411540, at *2 (D.N.H. Feb. 5, 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a)). “[A]ll reasonable inferences are to be drawn in the

nonmoving party’s favor,” id., and the court construes the pro

se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.

89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).

2 Background

Orantes was employed by Dollar General at its store in

Walpole, New Hampshire as a part-time sales associate beginning

in approximately September 2020. On September 5, 2020, Orantes

signed the Arbitration Agreement. It dictates that Dollar

General employees adjudicate certain legal claims through

arbitration. The Arbitration Agreement also largely waives an

employee’s right to file a lawsuit against Dollar General.

On November 16, 2020, Orantes filed charges of

discrimination and retaliation against Dollar General with the

Commission.2 On December 9, 2022, the Commission issued a finding

of probable cause as to those charges. Following the probable

cause finding, on July 6, 2023, Dollar General removed the

action from the Commission to the New Hampshire Superior Court

in Cheshire County. Approximately one month later, on August 3,

Dollar General further removed the case from the superior court

to this court. On August 9, Dollar General filed a motion to

compel arbitration under the Arbitration Agreement. After

Orantes failed to object by the August 23 deadline, the court

2 As noted above, Orantes also filed the same claims with the EEOC. On September 22, 2023, the EEOC notified Orantes of his right to sue Dollar General under relevant federal law. Although Orantes equates this notice with a finding of probable cause by the EEOC, there is nothing in the record to support his position. All of this is beside the point, however, as Orantes initiated the state proceeding that was ultimately removed to this court before the EEOC right-to-sue notice was sent to him.

3 held a status conference with the parties via video conference.

The court then extended the time for Orantes to object. He filed

an objection on September 29. The court held a hearing on

November 7.

Discussion

Enforcement of arbitration agreements in federal court is

governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. See 9 U.S.C. § 1 et

seq. “There is a strong federal presumption in favor of

arbitration.” Rosen, 2021 WL 411540, at *3 (citing Moses H. Cone

Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24–25

(1983)). “Thus, when a party agrees to arbitrate a dispute, the

FAA leaves federal courts powerless to address the merits[.] . .

. Instead, [courts] must send the parties off, as they agreed,

to duke out their dispute in their arbitral forum.” Rodriguez-

Rivera, 43 F.4th at 167 (citations omitted). “A party seeking to

compel arbitration must demonstrate ‘that a valid agreement to

arbitrate exists, that the movant is entitled to invoke the

arbitration clause, that the other party is bound by that

clause, and that the claim asserted comes within the clause's

scope.’” Rosen, 2021 WL 411540, at *3 (quoting Dialysis Access

Ctr. v. RMS Lifeline, Inc., 638 F.3d 367, 375 (1st Cir. 2011)).

Dollar General argues that Orantes’s claims fall squarely

within the parameters of the Arbitration Agreement. In response,

4 Orantes does not dispute the validity of the Arbitration

Agreement or whether it governs his claims. He argues, however,

that because the Commission found probable cause to support his

claims, he should be allowed to pursue those claims in court. In

support, Orantes cites E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S.

279 (2002).

Waffle House does not support Orantes’s argument that an

individual employee can pursue claims in a court action when

those claims are subject to a valid arbitration agreement.

Rather, that case addresses the EEOC’s right to bring an

enforcement action against an employer despite the existence of

an employee’s arbitration agreement. Id. at 294. Waffle House

has no bearing on this case, in which Orantes, and not the EEOC,

is the plaintiff.

The court agrees with Dollar General that Orantes’s claims

should be sent to arbitration according to the terms of the

Arbitration Agreement. The Arbitration Agreement, which Orantes

signed on September 5, 2020, is clear and unambiguous. Orantes

agreed that arbitration would be the “exclusive means of

resolving [his claims] relating to or arising out of [his]

employment . . . [including] claims alleging violations of . . .

state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment,

and retaliation[.]” Doc. no. 4-2 at 1. Dollar General has met

its burden by invoking an arbitration agreement made between

5 itself and Orantes that explicitly governs his discrimination

claims. See Rosen, 2021 WL 411540, at *3 (citations omitted).

Orantes does not dispute the validity of the Arbitration

Agreement or that he is bound by it.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to compel

arbitration (doc. no. 4) is granted. Any other pending motion is

denied as moot. Notably, Orantes asks the court to “hold on” to

his case. Doc. no. 5 at 1. Although there is no doubt that

arbitration is mandated in this case, in light of Orantes’s pro

se status, the case shall be stayed, rather than dismissed, and

subject to reopening at the request of either party, as

appropriate, following arbitration. In the interim, the clerk

shall administratively close the case.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ Samantha D. Elliott United States District Judge

November 7, 2023

cc: Miguel Orantes, pro se Counsel of Record.