In a favorable ruling for the staffing industry, a Massachusetts federal district court ruled that a temporary employee who brought claims against both a staffing agency and its client was compelled to arbitrate those claims against the client, notwithstanding the fact that the client was not a signatory to the employee’s arbitration agreement with the staffing agency.
During onboarding with the staffing agency, the employee signed a mandatory arbitration agreement requiring her to arbitrate any disputes between herself and the staffing agency. The agency’s client was not a party to this agreement. After being terminated, the employee alleged discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against both the agency and the client.
The staffing agency was dismissed from the case due to the arbitration agreement, and the client filed a motion seeking to compel arbitration of the employee’s claims. The court granted the motion, noting that the employee alleged “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct” by both the staffing agency and its client. The court further noted that the employee admitted the employee was “jointly employed” by both parties, referred to both parties collectively as “company,” and alleged that both the staffing agency and its client contributed to her discrimination and retaliation. The court therefore held that the client was covered by the arbitration agreement.
To read the case, see Dorinda Steel-Rogers v. Global Life Science, 2022 WL 3916362 (D. Mass. 2022).
The post Massachusetts Court Rules That Arbitration Agreement Covers Nonsignatory Staffing Agency Client appeared first on American Staffing Association.