United States District Court, D. Oregon
ROBERT T. ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
XEROX CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant.
Glenn Solomon, Portland, OR, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Gordon L. Osaka, Attorney at Law, P.C., Portland, OR, Stephen L. Scott, The Kullman Firm, Birmingham, AL, Attorneys for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
GARR M. KING, District Judge.
Plaintiff Robert Anderson brings a complaint alleging disability discrimination, age discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination against defendant Xerox Corporation. Pending before me is defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss .
Anderson began working for defendant on or around July 1, 2007. At the time of his employment application a month earlier, defendant reports Anderson "electronically" initialed (along with other documents) an acceptance of defendant's Dispute Resolution Plan ("DRP"):
I have applied for employment with [defendant]. I recognize that [defendant] has adopted a Dispute Resolution Plan ("DRP") effective April 13, 2002 as the exclusive remedy for resolving the vast majority of workplace concerns and disputes. I understand and agree that the DRP will be the exclusive means for resolving any dispute or claim concerning my application for employment or the terms and conditions of my employment with [defendant]. I understand that [defendant's] consideration of my application for employment and any offer of employment that may be made to me are contingent on my acceptance of the DRP as the exclusive means for resolving all disputes covered under the DRP.... I understand that by signing this document, I am waiving any right I might otherwise have to have a jury or judge resolve any claim I might have against [defendant].
Def.'s Ex. A-3. The initials "rta" appear at the bottom of the page.
According to defendant, Anderson also "electronically" acknowledged reviewing the Employee Guidebook on June 19, 2007, which included the following paragraph:
[Defendant] has adopted a Dispute Resolution Plan as the exclusive means of resolving the majority of work-related problems. Its purpose is to give employees flexible options for airing and settling almost every kind of workplace conflict, ranging from minor, everyday misunderstandings to violations of legally protected rights.
Def.'s Ex. A-5, at 58.
On September 14, 2012, defendant e-mailed Anderson and other employees a revised version of the DRP, instructing them to "review the DRP carefully because the changes and updates impact your legal rights." Def.'s Ex. A-6. The notification emphasized that the revised DRP would become effective 30 days later and that "[a]cceptance of the DRP, as revised, is a condition to your continued employment after that date." Id . It reiterated, "If you do not wish to accept and be bound by the terms of the revised DRP, you must terminate your employment before the Effective Date." Id . Defendant submitted evidence demonstrating Anderson opened the e-mail that same day. Anderson continued his employment after receiving the e-mail.
Anderson also completed a New Hire Course on August 10, 2007 in which the DRP was explained. Finally, Anderson completed annual training on September 25, 2011 and again on September 20, 2012 in which the DRP program was covered. The DRP is posted on defendant's intranet site.
The DRP itself is approximately 17 pages, and is "designed to provide a program for the quick, fair, accessible, and inexpensive resolution of all Disputes" between defendant and all employees. Def.'s Ex. A-1, at 1 (Sept. 2012); see also Ex. A-2, at 2 (Jan. 2002). It applies to all employees, other than those covered by a collective bargaining ...