SCRANTON – Longhorn Steakhouse argues two former servers at its Wilkes-Barre restaurant location have failed to convince that their dispute shouldn’t be governed by the company’s internal dispute resolution process and further, by the Federal Arbitration Act.
Jane Does 1 and 2 initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on May 28, versus Darden Restaurants, Inc., GMRI, Inc. (doing business as “Longhorn Steakhouse”) and its managing partner, both of Wilkes-Barre.
The plaintiffs were hired by defendant Darden as servers at the restaurant in or around January 2014 and February 2016 respectively, and were supervised by him.
“Plaintiffs bring this action after being subjected to a lengthy and escalating pattern of quid pro quo sexual advances, and sexual assaults, at the hands of the restaurant’s managing partner... and being terminated when they eventually rejected his abusive behavior,” the suit stated.
“(Defendant's) harassment of plaintiffs was severe and pervasive, and consisted of, among other things, inappropriately groping plaintiffs; making verbal sexual advances towards plaintiffs; repeatedly sending sexually explicit photos and videos of himself to plaintiffs via text message and social media applications; compelling plaintiffs to drink alcohol with him on-the-clock and in the workplace; and, most egregiously, sexually assaulting one of the plaintiffs in his office on the restaurant’s premises – not once, but twice.”
The plaintiffs said when they accepted his advances, they “received job promotions, pay raises, and were staffed to more lucrative shifts and more desirable sections of the restaurant.”
But over time, his harassment took a toll on both plaintiffs’ emotional well-being, they said, and both were required to seek psychological treatment and were prescribed psychiatric medication throughout the course of their employment.
“Both plaintiffs therefore eventually grew less receptive to (Defendant's) advances, and in response were staffed to lower paying and less desirable shifts, were verbally accosted, and were ultimately terminated after years of employment at the restaurant,” according to the lawsuit.
In addition, the plaintiffs said he targeted numerous female subordinate co-workers with this treatment and three complaints for sexual harassment had been filed against him since early 2016.
“However, defendant Darden outright ignored at least one of the complaints, and with respect to the complaint it did respond to, it tasked (defendant's) personal friend, Director of Operations Todd LeFever, with ‘investigating’ the allegation,” the suit states.
“LeFever then compromised the integrity of the resulting investigation by giving defendant... advance notice of the investigation – which enabled defendant... to contact and intimidate witnesses prior to them being interviewed by LeFever – and by improperly pressuring the employee responsible for lodging the complaint.”
As a result, the defendant “unsurprisingly escaped discipline for his behavior, and continued his pattern of harassment towards plaintiffs, causing serious and permanent harm to both of them,” per the suit.
Attorneys for Longhorn Steakhouse filed a motion to compel arbitration on July 28, saying a federal law was able to hold court over the restaurant’s internal dispute resolution process.
“The U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the Pennsylvania courts, as well as numerous courts across the country, have all ruled that such agreements are enforceable with respect to the claims raised in plaintiffs’ complaint. Therefore, plaintiffs should be compelled to resolve their claims by the mutually-agreed upon DRP and its final and binding arbitration provision,” the motion stated.
“The Federal Arbitration Act applies to the DRP. First, the DRP expressly states that the FAA governs. Further, GMRI owns and operates approximately 1,700 restaurants through various subsidiaries. As such, GMRI’s national operations and employment practices implicate matters of interstate commerce and thus, the DRP is a ‘contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce’ sufficient to trigger application of the FAA.”
According to the defendants, the DRP is a valid and enforceable contract, and should the complaint not be dismissed outright, they argued it should be stayed pending the completion of arbitration proceedings.
UPDATE
The restaurant chain filed a reply brief on Aug. 25, challenging the plaintiffs’ view of how to resolve the dispute between the parties.
“Plaintiffs fail to tip the scale in their favor on the issue of whether GMRI’s DRP is binding, valid, and enforceable. In their opposition, plaintiffs admit they understood that agreeing to the DRP was a condition of their employment, and admit that they acknowledged and agreed to the DRP,” per the brief.
“What’s more, they do not dispute that their claims fall within the DRP’s scope. The Court need go no further to determine that the parties formed a valid and binding contract under Pennsylvania law.”
Per the defendants, the plaintiffs’ challenges to the DRP are insufficient.
“Plaintiffs’ attacks on the validity of the DRP fall short. Plaintiffs fail to specifically challenge the DRP’s delegation clause, necessitating such challenges be reserved for an arbitrator. Nonetheless, plaintiffs’ challenges are baseless,” according to the defendants’ brief.
“Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that the DRP is both substantively and procedurally unconscionable. Even if they could, the challenged provisions are severable. Therefore, plaintiffs should be compelled to resolve their claims via the mutually agreed-upon DRP and its final and binding arbitration provision.”
As the DRP is not substantively unconscionable, the defendants said, they feel the Court “need not evaluate plaintiffs’ arguments concerning procedural unconscionability because even if the Court determines the DRP is procedurally unconscionable, the DRP is not invalid.”
For counts of creating hostile work environment through sexual harassment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, negligent supervision and retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery, the plaintiffs are seeking extensive relief in the form of back pay, front pay, compensatory damages punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and all other relief as the Court deems just and equitable, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by Matthew Mobilio and Peter C. Wood Jr. of Mobilio Wood, in Allentown and Forty Fort.
The defendants are represented by Edward Chyun and Wendy Sue Buckingham of Littler Mendelson in Cleveland, Ohio and Philadelphia, plus John R. O’Brien of Oliver Price & Rhodes, in Clarks Summit.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-00862
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com