## Facts

- Armand Santoro began working for Accenture in 1997 and later held management roles, including program manager for IRS.gov and account lead for the Department of the Treasury account.
- In 2005, Santoro entered an employment agreement that automatically renewed annually and required arbitration of “any and all disputes” relating to the agreement or his employment, including termination, discrimination, and retaliation claims.
- In 2010, Santoro was assigned a new supervisor who allegedly disliked him.
- In September 2011, at age 66, Santoro was terminated as part of a cost-cutting measure and replaced by a younger male employee.
- Santoro sued in the District of Columbia Superior Court under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act; Accenture moved to compel arbitration under the 2005 agreement, and the court granted the motion.
- After receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter, Santoro filed a separate action in the Eastern District of Virginia asserting claims under the ADEA, FMLA, and ERISA.
- Accenture moved to compel arbitration of the federal claims; the district court granted the motion, and Santoro appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Dodd-Frank whistleblower anti-arbitration provisions invalidate or bar enforcement of an otherwise valid arbitration agreement under the FAA when the plaintiff asserts only non-whistleblower claims (ADEA, FMLA, ERISA).
2. Whether Dodd-Frank contains a “contrary congressional command” sufficient to displace the FAA for disputes not brought “under” the specified whistleblower sections.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the order compelling arbitration.
- Dodd-Frank’s anti-arbitration provisions did not apply because Santoro did not assert any whistleblower claim under the relevant Dodd-Frank sections.
- The FAA’s mandate favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements was not displaced for Santoro’s ADEA, FMLA, and ERISA claims.
- The arbitration clause remained enforceable, requiring arbitration of the federal employment claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FAA, arbitration agreements are enforceable unless a later federal statute shows a clear “contrary congressional command” to displace the FAA.
- Dodd-Frank’s anti-arbitration language in specified whistleblower provisions is claim-specific: it addresses only arbitration of a “dispute under” those whistleblower sections.
- Statutory limits on arbitration tied to “disputes under this section” do not invalidate an arbitration agreement as to unrelated statutory claims.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the employment arbitration agreement and required arbitration of Santoro’s ADEA, FMLA, and ERISA claims, holding that Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower anti-arbitration provisions do not bar arbitration unless the lawsuit itself is a whistleblower “dispute under” those provisions.


Santoro v. Accenture Fed. Servs., LLC, 748 F.3d 217 (4th Cir. 2014)