Does "all" really mean "all"? And it is "all" of what? These questions were presented the Sixth Circuit in Russell v. Citigroup, Inc, No 13-5994 (April 4, 2014).
Keith Russell worked at a Citicorp call center from 2004 to 2009. In January 2012, Russell filed a class action against Citicorp seeking unpaid wages and overtime relating to time employees "spent logging into and out of their computers at the beginning and end of each work day." Later in 2012 and while the class action was still pending, Russell was rehired by Citicorp and was presented with and signed an arbitration agreement applicable to "all employment-related disputes" between the two.
Armed with this sweeping, expansive agreement applicable to "all employment-related disputes" between it and Russell, Citicorp moved to compel arbitration of the class action. After the district court denied its motion, Citicorp appealed and thus presented the Sixth Circuit with the opportunity to define the meaning of "all," arguing that "all employment-related disputes" in the arbitration agreement included and reached the class action Russell had filed and which was pending before the arbitration agreement existed.
The Sixth Circuit didn't fall for Citicorp's contention that the arbitration agreement applied retroactively. After a brief review and parsing of some of the contract's language and its preamble, the Court dismissed Citicorp's argument as follows:
Citicorp claims: The provision before us -- "This Policy [covers] all employment-related disputes ... which ... arise between [Russell] and Citi" still proclaims with a clear throat that the arbitrator will decide pending and impending cases alike. But milieu limits the reach of general words like "all." See United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610, 631-32 (1818)(Marshall, C.J.). If the poissonier tells the chef, "I have marinated all the salmon," we know from context that he means all the salmon on the kitchen counter, not all the salmon in the universe. So too here. We know from context -- from the use of "arise," from the preamble and from the parties' probable expectations -- that the contract refers to all future lawsuits, not all lawsuits from the beginning of time to the end.
So, "all" means all employment-related disputes between Russell and Citicorp that may or do arise in the future.
Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton authored the Sixth Circuit's opinion and deserves special mention and kudos for the salmon analogy and working the term "poisonnier" into a judicial opinion. Judge Sutton's opinion was joined by Senior Circuit Judge Gilbert Merritt and Circuit Judge Richard Griffin.
The case was also discussed on the Kentucky Employment Law Blog: Does a New Arbitration Agreement Apply to an Already Pending Lawsuit?
Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com
Comments