In a recent employment case, a federal court compelled arbitration of the former employee’s claims, and this case raises some strategic considerations when seeking enforcement of an arbitration clause. Skrynnikov v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, No. 11–0609 (D.D.C. May 8, 2013).
A former employee sued Fannie Mae in federal court for eliminating his position in retaliation for the employee’s investigation into false statements made by Fannie Mae to a Senate committee. The plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged violation of three statutes: the Federal False Claims Act (“FCA”), and interference with the plaintiff’s rights under both the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and the related District of Columbia Family and Medical Leave Act (“DCFMLA”).
Fannie Mae’s response was interesting. Fannie Mae moved to dismiss the FMLA and DCFMLA claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, Fannie Mae asked the court to compel arbitration of the FCA claim. Fannie Mae also requested that in the alternative, if the Court did not dismiss the FMLA and DCFMLA claims, the court should compel arbitration as to those claims as well.
The court, finding that all three claims were subject to a valid arbitration agreement, stayed the case and ordered the claims be submitted to arbitration.
It is not entirely clear, but perhaps Fannie Mae was trying to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Twombly and Iqbal when asking the court to dismiss two claims pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). I have wondered whether corporate defendants would seek to litigate in court and waive arbitration because of the new heightened pleading standards set forth in “Twiqbal.” However, the court in this case mentioned there was no waiver because Fannie Mae asked to compel arbitration in the event the 12b6 motion was not granted.