United States District Court, D. Oregon
Creighton Creighton & Rose, PC Attorney for Plaintiff
Patrick C. Wylie Davis Rothwell Earle & Xochihua P.C Bryce A.
Young Edward M. Cramp Duane Morris LLP Attorneys for
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge.
Claudette Sanders brings this action against Concorde Career
Colleges, Inc. (“Concorde”) and Computer Career
Institute, Inc., alleging violations of her civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d and Oregon state law.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Concorde discriminated
against her on the basis of her race and retaliated against
her for reporting racial discrimination. Before the Court is
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. ECF 11. The
motion is GRANTED.
an African American female, enrolled in Concorde's
Surgical Technology program (“the Program”) on
June 18, 2014. Plaintiff enrolled in the program by signing
an Enrollment Agreement (“2014 Enrollment
Agreement”). Ierien Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. A, ECF 13. The
2014 Enrollment Agreement included an arbitration provision
Any dispute arising from enrollment at Concorde Career
College, no matter how described, pleaded or styled, shall be
resolved by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration
Act conducted by the American Arbitration Association
(“AAA”) at Portland, Oregon, under its Commercial
Rules. The award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in
any court having jurisdiction.
Id. Ex. A at 1. Plaintiff alleges that during her
2014 enrollment in the Program, she was subject to race
discrimination. Compl. ¶¶ 8-16. Plaintiff was
withdrawn from the Program in May of 2015, allegedly for
unsatisfactory academic performance. Ierien Decl. ¶ 9.
In July of 2015, Plaintiff reported her concerns regarding
race discrimination to Concorde's dean and to
Defendants' campus president Kim Ierien. Compl.
¶¶ 18-20. In December of 2015, Plaintiff also
reported race discrimination to Defendants' student
affairs advisor. Id. at ¶ 21.
reenrolled in the Program on December 1, 2015. Ierien Decl.
Ex. B at 1. As part of her reenrollment, Plaintiff signed a
second Enrollment Agreement (“2015 Enrollment
Agreement”). Id. The 2015 Enrollment Agreement
was filled out electronically and signed electronically.
Id.; Ierien Reply Decl. ¶5, Ex. D, ECF 25.
Prior to signing the 2015 Enrollment Agreement, Plaintiff
also signed an Electronic Signature and Consent Form, making
her electronic signature binding. Ierien Reply Decl. Ex. D.
The 2015 Enrollment Agreement also contained an arbitration
provision identical to the one in the 2014 Enrollment
Agreement. Ierien Decl. Ex. B at 1.
alleges that Defendants' racial discrimination continued
during her second enrollment in the Program. Compl.
¶¶ 23-25. For the second time, Plaintiff was
withdrawn from the Program for unsatisfactory academic
performance. Ierien Decl. ¶ 12. Plaintiff reported race
discrimination to Defendants' corporate office and
appealed her expulsion from the Program. Compl. ¶¶
28-31. Her appeal was denied and on May 31, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries
alleging unlawful discrimination. Id. ¶¶
32-33. Ultimately, Plaintiff was invited back to the Program
on the condition that she sign a third Enrollment Agreement
(“2016 Enrollment Agreement”) and a separate
Arbitration Agreement. Ierien Decl. ¶¶ 13-14, Ex.
C; Sanders Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 1, ECF 24. Plaintiff refused
to sign the paperwork and as a result Defendants refused to
re-admit her to the Program. Id. ¶ 11.
October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this Court
alleging four separate counts of race discrimination and
retaliation against Defendants under Federal and state law.
Plaintiff refused Defendants' request to withdraw her
Complaint and submit the parties' dispute to arbitration.
Young Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, Exs. A & B. Defendants then
filed a motion to compel arbitration arguing that this Court
should dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and enforce the
arbitration provisions contained in the 2014 and 2015
asserts and Plaintiff does not contest that Rule 12(b)(1)
applies to motions to dismiss based on arbitration. The Court
recognizes, however, that courts are divided as to whether a
court's authority to dismiss under these circumstances
stems from Rules 12(b)(1), (b)(3), or (b)(6). For purposes this
Motion, whether a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction or a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim applies does not change
this Court's decision. Under either Rule, the Court can
review the extrinsic documents submitted by the parties. In
considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court may consider
evidence outside the pleadings to resolve factual disputes.
Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th
Cir. 2009). Under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court
“may consider a document the authenticity of which is
not contested, and upon which the plaintiff's complaint
necessarily relies.” Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146
F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (July 28, 1998).
Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), states that
written agreements to arbitrate arising out of transactions
involving interstate commerce “shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist
at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. If the issue is referable
to arbitration under the agreement, then the court must
direct the issue to arbitration and stay the trial. 9 U.S.C.
§ 3. An ...