SubscribeAdd blog to your RSS feed
FeedbackWe'd like to hear from you
- The Inbox - May 17, 2013
- Supreme Court Considering Whether to Accept Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Case
- Farmers Insurance Wins Summary Judgment on Ex-Employee’s Breach of Contract
- The Inbox - May 10, 2013
- Martensen v. Koch, Venue, and You
- Martensen v. Koch, Personal Jurisdiction, and You
- The Inbox, May Day Edition
- Don’t Mess With The Lawyers (Or Other Public Employees), Part 2
- April 2013 Monthly Roundup
- Rule #1: Don’t Mess With The Lawyers (Or Any Other Public-Sector Employees), Part 1
- Civil Litigation
- Breach of Contract
- Family Medical Leave
- Social Media
- Age Discrimination
- Severance Agreements – Change-in-Control Provisions
- Executive Compensation
- Dodd-Frank Act Clawbacks
- Motions to Dismiss
- The Inbox
- Religious Discrimination
- Workplace Conditions (Occupational Safety and Health)
- Monthly Roundup
- Fiduciary Duties
- Wage and Hour
- Trade Secrets
- Arbitration and ADR
- Statutes of limitations
- Wrongful Termination
- Equal Pay
- After-Acquired Evidence
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Summary Judgment
- Title VII
- The Basics
- Preliminary Injunction
Blogs We Like:
The AmLaw Daily
The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes
Connecticut Employment Law Blog
The D&O Diary
Delaware Employment Law Blog
DeNovo: A Virginia Appellate Law Blog
The Employer Handbook
Executive Pay Matters
The Federal Criminal Appeals Blog
Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home: What You Need To Know Before You Scream “I Quit,” Get Fired, Or Decide to Sue the Bastards
Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog
Virginia Appellate News & Analysis
WSJ Law Blog
Arbitration By Estoppel: Can You Be Compelled to Arbitrate Even Though You Never Signed An Agreement?
Continuing our coverage of the sexual discrimination lawsuit between former partner Ellen Pao and venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins (prior stories are here and here), on Friday, Kleiner Perkins moved the San Francisco Superior Court to compel arbitration of its dispute for a second time -- this time with a twist.
Initially, Kleiner Perkins argued that Ms. Pao’s employment contract contained an express agreement to arbitrate; that argument was rejected by the Court on July 10, 2012 on the grounds that Kleiner Perkins was not a signatory to those clauses. Rather, the court held, the clauses were contained in various agreements Ms. Pao signed with investment funds owned by Kleiner Perkins, and not the firm itself.
Now, however, Kleiner Perkins is arguing that it is entitled to the benefit of the arbitration clauses under theories of equitable estoppel and as a third-party beneficiary. Commentators have described this theory as “novel.”
It may be novel, but, as it turns out, this issue has indeed been litigated before. In Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Association, 64 F.3d 773 (2d Cir. 1995), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that in some cases, equitable estoppel considerations can permit a nonsignatory plaintiff to compel arbitration against a signatory party to an arbitration agreement where that party has acted in a matter inconsistent with avoiding the obligations of arbitration. Id. at 778. Put simply: if a party who has signed an arbitration agreement acts to take advantage of that agreement (“knowingly exploiting the Agreement,” in the words of the Second Circuit”), then that party can be estopped from avoiding arbitration and compelled to arbitrate even by a plaintiff who is not a direct signatory to the arbitration agreement itself.
What the Second Circuit did not do, however, was hold that estoppel can be utilized in the manner that Kleiner Perkins seeks; that is, to be used offensively to bind a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement. As the Court held:
As these cases indicate, the circuits have been willing to estop a signatory from avoiding arbitration with a nonsignatory when the issues the nonsignatory is seeking to resolve in arbitration are intertwined with the agreement that the estopped party has signed. … [H]owever, the situation here is inverse: E&S, as signatory, seeks to compel Thomson, a non-signatory. While E&S suggests that this is a non-distinction, the nature of arbitration makes it important. Arbitration is strictly a matter of contract; if the parties have not agreed to arbitrate, the courts have no authority to mandate that they do so.
Kleiner Perkins’s argument is not frivolous; there are indeed cases – such as Fluehmann v. Associates Fin. Svcs., 2002 WL 500564 (D.Mass. 2002) in which courts have “converted” a non-signatory into a signatory on equitable grounds – but it is unprecedented.
With respect to Kleiner Perkins’s third-party beneficiary argument, generally the law requires that the contracting parties manifest an intent to make a non-party to a contract a beneficiary under that contract. As a California appellate court put it: “[I]t is not enough that the third party would incidentally have benefited from performance” under the contract; rather, “[t]he contracting parties must have intended to confer a benefit on the third party.” Souza v. Westlands Water District, 38 Cal.Rptr. 3d 78, 88 (2006).
Presumably Kleiner Perkins drafted both its employment contract and the contracts at issue between Ms. Pao and the subject investment funds; if so, the doctrine of contra preferentem will apply to strictly construe any ambiguities against Kleiner Perkins and in Ms. Pao’s favor.
Kleiner Perkins’s motion is set for a hearing this Friday, July 20.