## Facts

- Edith Clary worked for Helen of Troy Nevada Corporation, an affiliate of Helen of Troy, L.P. (collectively, Helen of Troy).
- Clary was summoned for and attended jury duty.
- After her jury service, Helen of Troy terminated Clary’s employment, citing policy violations.
- Clary filed suit in federal court alleging that the termination was retaliation for jury service, in violation of the Jury System Improvement Act of 1978, 28 U.S.C. § 1875.
- Helen of Troy moved to compel arbitration and to stay the court case, relying on an arbitration agreement Clary had signed that covered employment-related disputes.
- Clary opposed arbitration, arguing that a § 1875 claim should be decided in court because arbitration would conflict with Congress’s intent to protect jurors and the functioning of the judicial process.

## Issues

1. Whether a retaliation claim under the Jury System Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1875, must be sent to arbitration under a broad employment arbitration agreement, or whether Congress intended such claims to be litigated in court despite the FAA.

## Decision

- The court granted Helen of Troy’s motion to compel arbitration.
- The court stayed the federal action pending completion of arbitration.
- The court rejected Clary’s argument that § 1875 conflicts with arbitration, concluding there was no clear congressional directive barring arbitration of claims under the Jury System Improvement Act.

## Legal Principles

- The Federal Arbitration Act generally requires enforcement of a valid arbitration agreement according to its terms, including as to federal statutory claims.
- A federal statutory claim is not exempt from arbitration unless Congress clearly indicated otherwise, shown through the statute’s text, legislative history, or a direct conflict between arbitration and the statute’s objectives.
- The fact that a statute authorizes a civil action in court does not, by itself, bar arbitration when the arbitration process can resolve the dispute and allow for the statute’s available relief.
- When an arbitration agreement covers employment disputes broadly, a retaliatory-discharge claim tied to the employment relationship ordinarily falls within its scope unless specifically carved out.

## Conclusion

In *Clary v. Helen of Troy, L.P.*, the court enforced an employment arbitration agreement against an employee’s claim that she was fired for attending jury duty in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1875, ordered the parties to arbitrate the dispute, and stayed the federal case because the statute did not plainly prohibit arbitration and arbitration was not shown to defeat the statute’s aims.


Clary v. Helen of Troy, L.P., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151479 (2011)