Williams v. Parkell Products, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Oganesyan v. Tiffany and Company (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
- Beatty v. Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 2023)
- Crespo v. Kapnisis (District Court, E.D. New York 2022)
- Fenton v. Criterion Worldwide (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
- Balderas v. 8 Chelsea Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2019)
- Giddings v. Media Lodge, Inc. (United States District Court 2018)
- Giddings v. Media Lodge, Inc. (District Court, D. South Dakota 2018)
- Chambers v. Groome Transportation (United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama 2014)
- Clinton v. OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. (District Court, S.D. New York 2011)
- Moore v. Ferrellgas, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2008)
- Tonya Cooper v. Mrm Investment Company, Terry Rogers and Larry Mays (6th Cir. 2004)
- Tarulli v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
SUMMARY ORDER
Pro se plaintiff-appellant Ishmael Williams (‘Williams”), an African-American man, brought suit in federal district court against his former employer, Parkell Products, Inc. (“Parkell”), alleging that the defendant denied him equal pay and promotions on the basis of his race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq (“Title VII”), and that the defendant terminated his employment in retaliation for complaining about discriminatory harassment by his supervisor and manager, also in contravention of Title VII. Parkell filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for a stay of the action pending arbitration, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3. The district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that an arbitration agreement signed by Williams in 1997 required arbitration, rather than litigation, of his Title VII claims against Parkell.
Williams argues that Parkell’s threat to terminate his employment if he did not sign the arbitration agreement constituted duress sufficient to defeat defendant’s motion to dismiss his complaint. In order to establish duress, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that a threat was unlawfully made; (2) that the threat caused plaintiff involuntarily to accept the contract terms; and (3) that the circumstances left him with no other alternatives. See Kamerman v. Steinberg, 891 F.2d 424, 431 (2d Cir. 1989). It is well-settled, however, that conditioning employment on the acceptance of an agreement to arbitrate disputes, including those arising under civil rights laws, is not itself unlawfully coercive. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v.
We have considered all of the appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
. The arbitration agreement provided, in relevant part: "Any and all disputes, controversies or claims arising or existing among or between Parkell and Employee concerning any matter whatsoever shall be arbitrated before the American Arbitration Association ("AAA”) in accordance with the then prevailing Rules of Arbitration of the AAA, including but not limited to any and all claims or controversies arising under or concerning ... Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964....”
. The plaintiff suggests on appeal that his signature on the arbitration agreement was forged. But we cannot consider this contention because Williams did not raise it before the district court. See Mattel, Inc. v. Barbie-Club.com, 310 F.3d 293, 306 (2d Cir. 2002).
. As the district court correctly noted, the plaintiff is, of course, free to pursue, through arbitration, Title VII claims he believes to be valid.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.