The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Order which denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment in the workplace and retaliation, and granted the motion. Generally, when a contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract and has no power to decide the arbitrability issue. Here, though, the motion court properly undertook an analysis of the threshold question of the arbitration agreement's enforceability because plaintiff's sexual harassment claims involve strong public policy considerations and the application of CPLR 7515, which prohibits agreements that compel arbitration of discrimination claims. Plaintiff's reliance on CPLR 7515 is unavailing, as it is not applicable to arbitration agreements, like the one at issue, that were entered into before the statute was enacted in 2018. Accordingly, the Appellate Division did not have to resolve defendant's further contention that the Federal Arbitration Act, which is expresly applicable to the employment agreement at issue here, is inconsistent with, and therefore displaces, CPLR 7515 to the extent that it prohibits outright a specific type of claim. Plaintiff's contention that revisions to defendant's employee handbook, rendered in 2018, superseded the arbitration agreement is also unavailing. The issue of whether the policy revisions supersede the arbitration agreement is one for the arbitrator to decide, as the arbitration agreement contains a delegation clause and this issue does not involve strong public policy considerations.
Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., NY Slip Op 01558 (1st Dep't March 18, 2021)
Here is the decision.
