CHICAGO — A federal judge has sent to arbitration a dispute between a truck driver and her employer over alleged sex discrimination and failure to pay overtime, saying a provision in the company's employee handbook should stand as a binding agreement, requiring arbitration of disputes.
On Aug. 2, U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin granted the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings sought by defendant Progistics Distribution Inc. in the company's dispute with plaintiff Karina Moreno.
Moreno resigned from her job as a semi-truck driver in March and subsequently filed a collective action lawsuit against Progistics.
In November 2016 at the beginning of her employment, Moreno signed an “employee acknowledgment of receipt” of the Progistics’ employee handbook for Illinois, which included the arbitration clause in question.
This handbook included “Section 1.5,” which stated: "In consideration of your employment with Progistics Distribution, its promise to arbitrate all employment-related disputes […] you agree that any and all controversies, claims or disputes with anyone […] shall be subject to binding arbitration under the terms and conditions set forth in the at-will employment…"
Further, according to the 23-page document, Moreno signed a separate acknowledgement “unequivocally stating” that she agreed that she was “bound by the provisions of the handbook, particularly to the provision relating to the mandatory, binding arbitration of any employment related dispute.”
Judge Durkin disagreed with Moreno’s arguments that the handbook was not a binding contract and that “any agreement to arbitrate in the 'arbitration policy' section of the handbook was illusory” and pointed out the separate acknowledgement she signed that stated she was bound to the arbitration clause.
Durkin also stated: “Moreno’s mere continued employment constituted consideration on the part of Progistics for her promises in the acknowledgment to arbitrate under Illinois law.” He additionally disagreed with the plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration provisions in the acknowledgement and handbook were “vague and unconscionable” based on “lack of specificity.”
Durkin stated that provisions “to which Moreno agreed here are more detailed and more precise than the clauses found sufficient under Illinois law [in a similar case]."
Lastly, the judge rejected Moreno’s argument that the 2018 handbook, which did not contain an arbitration clause, “superseded” the 2015 handbook. The defendant maintained its “pre-existing arbitration program with its employees and continued to enter into arbitration agreements with its employees separate from that handbook.”
Moreno is represented in the action by attorney Martin K. Denis, of the firm of Barlow Kobata & Denis, of Chicago.
Progistics is defended by attorneys Ines M. Monte and Matthew J. Ruza, of the firm of Littler Mendelson P.C., of Chicago.