22-2318 Tavenner v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of August, two thousand twenty-three.

5 PRESENT: 6 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 Circuit Judges.

10 _____________________________________ Deborah Tavenner, 14 Plaintiff-Appellant, 16 v. International Business Machines Corporation, 22-2318 20 Defendant-Appellee.

21 _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN (Thomas Fowler, 24 on the brief), Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., 25 Boston, MA.

27 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: TRACI L. LOVITT, Jones Day (Anthony J.

28 Dick, Jones Day, Washington, DC; Matthew 29 W. Lampe, Erika D. Cagney, Jones Day, 30 New York, NY; J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, 31 Jones Day, Dallas, TX, on the brief), New 32 York, NY.

1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Karas, J.).

3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s motion to unseal is DENIED.

6 Plaintiff is a former employee of International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), who sued to invalidate two provisions in the arbitration agreement she signed when she was terminated. On appeal, Plaintiff raises substantially the same issues as the plaintiffs in several related appeals. 1 We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its decision, see Tavenner v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 21-CV-6345, 2022 WL 4449215 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2022), and for the reasons stated in our opinion in the related appeal, In re IBM Arb.

12 Agreement Litig., No. 22-1728 (2d Cir. Aug. 4, 2023).

13 We have considered all of Plaintiff’s arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s motion to unseal is DENIED as moot.

16 FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

See In re IBM Arb. Agreement Litig., No. 22-1728; Chandler v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 22- 1733; Lodi v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 22-1737.