United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: CASE STATUS
J. GARBIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court has before it Defendant's Motion To Enforce
Stipulation [ECF No. 27], Plaintiff's Motion to Retain
Title VII Rights [ECF No. 28], and the materials submitted
relating thereto. Neither party has requested a hearing on
the motion and the Court does not find that a hearing would
counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant filed the
Joint Stipulation To Stay Action Pending Arbitration [ECF No.
14], agreeing to stay all proceedings in court and to resolve
all of Plaintiff's claims in arbitration. As stated
After discussion between counsel, the Parties have agreed to
proceed with final, binding arbitration for all of
Plaintiff's claims, including Plaintiff's Title VII
race discrimination claim, pursuant to the applicable
procedure outlined in Defendant's Employee
Mediation/Binding Arbitration Program . . . .
Joint Stip. ¶ 8, ECF No. 14.
response to the Joint Stipulation, on May 10, the date it was
filed, Court Ordered [ECF No. 15]:
that all proceedings in this matter shall be stayed pending
the conclusion of the arbitration of Plaintiff's claims,
including Plaintiff's Title VII claim.
19, Plaintiff filed a Motion to proceed without counsel and
Request for Court Appointed Attorney [ECF No. 16] asserting:
my attorney talked me into agreeing to arbitration in hopes
of a quick conclusion to the matter via settlement. However,
the defendant chose not to negotiate a settlement. I am
deeply in debt and cannot afford another attorney.
Order [ECF No. 25] issued July 27, the Court denied
Plaintiffs' request for appointed counsel. By Joint
Status Report filed August 16 [ECF No. 26], the parties
advised that Plaintiff denies being subject to the
stipulation to proceed in arbitration regarding his Title VII
claims. Thus, Defendant has filed the instant motion seeking
to enforce the stipulation to proceed in arbitration. There
has been no request for a hearing regarding the instant
motion. Moreover, the Court finds the record clear regarding
the facts pertinent to the instant motion and finds no need
for further proceedings regarding the instant motion.
does not deny that his counsel of record in fact entered into
the Stipulation To Stay Action Pending Arbitration with
counsel for Defendant. Rather, he contends that he did not
authorize his attorney to agree to arbitration of the Title
VII claims. He states in this regard:
I wanted to contest the Defendant's motion in its
entirety so that both my non-Title VII and Title VII rights
would be litigated in court, which I paid for, but my
attorney talked me into agreeing to arbitration since my
attorney felt the court would uphold the Defendant's
company policy for arbitration of non-Title VII claims.
However, I only agreed to arbitration of the claims
required to be arbitrated per the Defendant's company
policy which were the non-Title VII claims included in
the Defendant's 4/14/17 motion to compel
arbitration. Accordingly, Plaintiff motions the court to
retain Plaintiff's right to litigate my Title VII claim
since I (Plaintiff) never agreed to arbitration of my Title
VII claim, I promptly terminated my relationship with my
attorney when I found out he agreed to arbitration of my
Title VII claim, and I feel my attorney did not have the
authority to agree to arbitration of my Title VII claim since
my agreement with my attorney was for the sole purpose of
pursuing litigation against the Defendant.
Pl.'s Mot. 1, ECF No. 28.