W. D. Texas, San Antonio Division Orders ERISA Lawsuit to Individual Arbitration

The Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division has ordered a proposed class-action Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit to individual arbitration.  In Torres v. Greystar Management Services, LP, No. SA-19-CA-510-FB (HJB) (W. D. Texas, October 25, 2019), a Greystar employee who was also a Greystar 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) participant filed a putative class-action lawsuit against Greystar over what she claimed were unusually high Plan administrative fees.  In response to the worker’s complaint, Greystar filed a motion to compel the dispute to individual arbitration based on the terms of the “Greystar Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims” (the “Arbitration Agreement”) that each employee signed as a condition of continued employment.  In addition, Greystar argued the parties’ Arbitration Agreement required that any questions of arbitrability be decided by an arbitrator.

Following a hearing on the matter, the Western District of Texas granted the company’s motion in part.  According to the federal district court:

This case is referred to arbitration, for determination of the following issues:

(i) Whether any claim in this lawsuit is excluded from the Greystar Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims (“the Agreement”) (Docket Entry 16-1, at 9-14 ), because it is based on “stock option plans, team member pension and/or welfare benefit plans [which contain] some Case 5:19-cv-00510-FB-HJB Document 25 Filed 10/25/19 Page 2 of 2 form of a grievance, arbitration, or other procedure for the resolution of disputes under the plan,” as provided in Section A of the Agreement (see id. at I 0);

(ii) Whether Plaintiffs individual representative claim on behalf of the Greystar 401 (k) Plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) is waived under Section B of the Agreement (Docket Entry 16-1, at 11 ); and

(iii) Whether waiver of an individual representative claim under Section B is an issue to be determined by the arbitrator, rather than the Court, under section C of the Agreement (see Docket Entry 16-1, at 11).

The San Antonio court added that the order did “not prohibit the parties from arguing during arbitration that other issues may, or must, be considered by the arbitrator.”  Finally, the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division stayed all further proceedings in the case pending arbitration proceedings.

H/T to PlanAdviser.

Photo by:  Markus Spiske on Unsplash