Cases

Plaintiff's employer entered into an employee leasing arrangement with appellant leasing company. Pursuant to that agreement, there was an arbitration clause which required that any dispute with the leasing company be arbitrated in Texas.  Plaintiff was injured in a work related accident and his employment was terminated shortly thereafter.  Plaintiff then sued the leasing company for wrongful termination claiming that the reason he was terminated was because he made a valid claim for workers' compensation benefits.  The question in this claim is whether the arbitration clause requiring arbitration in Texas applied in this instance to the plaintiff's claim for wrongful termination.  Trial court denied leasing company's Motion to Compel Arbitration ruling that the arbitration provision was invalid because it did not exclude workers' compensation proceedings from its scope and it violated public policy by requiring an hourly wage employee to arbitrate an employment dispute in a state other than Florida.  The standard of review for denial of a Motion to Compel Arbitration is de novo. 

Under both federal and state law, there are three elements to consider in ruling on a Motion to Compel Arbitration of a given dispute: 1) whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists; 2) whether an arbitrable issue exists, and 3) whether the right to arbitration is waived.  It is for the court, not the arbitrator, to determine whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists.  It is also for the court and not the arbitrator to determine whether an arbitration agreement violates public policy. 

An agreement to arbitrate future disputes in another jurisdiction is outside the authority of the Florida Arbitration Code and therefore renders the agreement to arbitrate voidable at the instance of either party.  If, however, the Federal Arbitration Act applies to the agreement, a Florida court must enforce a valid arbitration clause which provides for arbitration in a foreign state.  The Federal Arbitration Act applies to a transaction that in fact involves interstate commerce even if the parties did not intend the transaction to have an interstate commerce connection.  The court in this case determined that the employment transaction between the plaintiff and the leasing company involved interstate commerce and accordingly, the arbitration clause to arbitrate outside of the state of Florida was enforceable. 

An agreement to require arbitration of a workers' compensation retaliation claim is not violative of public policy.  The court determined that a claim for workers' compensation benefits is distinct from a cause of action of retaliatory discharge under Section 440.205, Florida Statutes.  Because the Federal Arbitration Act applied, the fact that the agreement provides for arbitration in another state is not grounds for invalidating it. 

Court also determined that the leasing company did not waive its right to arbitrate the retaliatory discharge claim in another state.  The leasing company took no action that was inconsistent with its right to arbitrate the plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim.  The filing of a workers' compensation claim for workers' compensation benefits did not constitute a waiver of the right to arbitrate a retaliatory discharge claim. 

Finally, the plaintiff did not establish any defenses to arbitration such as duress or unconscionability.