An employee hit a home run at the United States District Court for Maryland, when the court held that the employer, Ripkin Professional Baseball, could not prevent the employee from going to court on her gender bias claim, despite the employee having signed an arbitration agreement. In short, the District Court held the arbitration clause unenforceable because it was one-sided. The employer had no duty to arbitrate. Raglani v. Ripken Professional Baseball, No. CCB-12-3682 (D. Md. Apr. 16, 2013). The employee could have their day in court. Ripkin Professional Baseball (RPB) struck out. The employee was fired for having a romantic relationship with a subordinate, and then covering it up. In the lawsuit, the female employee alleges gender bias because she claims at RPB, male colleagues did the same and got away with it. Notably, the District Court also held the arbitration agreement, called a “Problem Support Policy,” unenforceable on the separate ground that the policy permitted RPB to exclusively choose the list of arbitrators and mediators handling any “problems.” Further, the Court found troubling that the policy lacked specific rules, just a reference to following the Federal Arbitration Act. A neutral decision-maker, said the Court in holding that an employer cannot exclusively control a list of decision-makers under such policies, is “the most fundamental aspect of justice.” What does this mean for employees? First, arbitration agreements are not always enforceable. If you have a legal grievance and also have signed an arbitration clause—have an attorney review both. Second, employers under the implied reasoning of Raglani v. Ripken Professional Baseball cannot enforce arbitration agreements concerning termination matters and simply terminate employees “at will” without the employer’s termination act also being subject to any in-house Problem Support Policy.
