Automated Summary
Key Facts
Angel Sheree Tennyson, a former delivery driver for Walmart's Spark Driver app, filed a pro se lawsuit on July 18, 2025, alleging breach of contract and bad faith after her account was deactivated. She later amended her complaint to include race discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. Walmart moved to compel arbitration based on a dispute resolution agreement signed by Tennyson on August 22, 2024, and to strike her amended complaint as untimely. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting Walmart's motion to compel arbitration and staying the case pending arbitration. Tennyson did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement but argued Walmart acted in bad faith during pre-arbitration proceedings. The court found no evidence of bad faith and ruled the amended complaint timely under Rule 15(a)(1)(B).
Transaction Type
Non-Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Agreement containing an arbitration provision
Issues
- Tennyson argued the arbitration provision was unconscionable under South Carolina law, but the court enforced the delegation clause, which mandates that arbitrability disputes be resolved by the arbitrator. Thus, the issue of unconscionability was not decided by the court but left for arbitration.
- The court granted Walmart's motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration provision was valid and that Tennyson had not shown bad faith. The court also stayed the case pending arbitration.
- The court determined that Tennyson's amended complaint was timely filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), as it was within 21 days after the service of a motion under Rule 12(b).
Holdings
- The court denied Walmart's motion to dismiss or strike the amended complaint, agreeing with the Magistrate Judge's finding that Walmart did not act in bad faith and that the amended complaint was timely filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B).
- The court granted Walmart's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration, citing 9 U.S.C. § 3. The parties are required to file joint status reports every 90 days and within 14 days after arbitration concludes.
Remedies
- The court grants Walmart's motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 28 at 5-12) and stays the matter pending arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 3, as requested by Walmart. This aligns with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and the court's review of the parties' compliance with the dispute resolution process outlined in the Agreement.
- The court denies Walmart Inc.'s motion to dismiss or strike the amended complaint filed on October 14, 2025 (ECF No. 28 at 12-13). This decision follows the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and is based on the plaintiff's failure to raise specific objections to the Report and Recommendation prior to review.
Legal Principles
- The court found that the plaintiff manifested her assent to the arbitration provision by electronically clicking 'I agree' during onboarding, which constitutes valid acceptance under contract law. This was based on the principle that a user's click on an 'I accept' button can signify contract formation.
- The court determined that the defendant acted in good faith by completing the mandatory pre-arbitration dispute resolution conference, and the plaintiff failed to present evidence of bad faith. This aligns with the legal principle that parties must engage in good-faith efforts to resolve disputes before arbitration.
- The court enforced the arbitration agreement's delegation clause, which grants the arbitrator exclusive authority to resolve disputes about the agreement's interpretation. This is a key procedural mechanism in arbitration law, as per Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, where unchallenged delegation clauses must be enforced.
Precedent Name
- Elijah v. Dunbar
- Mathews v. Weber
- Sgouros v. TransUnion Corp.
- United States v. Midgette
- Smith v. Spizzirri
- Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski
- Marshall v. Georgetown Mem'l Hosp.
Key Disputed Contract Clauses
- The delegation clause within the arbitration provision granted the arbitrator exclusive authority to resolve disputes about the clause's interpretation, including claims of unconscionability. The court enforced this clause, deferring such disputes to arbitration.
- The arbitration provision in the Non-Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Agreement required parties to resolve claims through arbitration. The court analyzed whether the plaintiff assented to this clause and found her electronic acceptance valid under contract law.
Cited Statute
- Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Federal Statutes
Judge Name
- Shiva V. Hodges
- Cameron McGowan Currie
Passage Text
- For the foregoing reasons, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report... in full, denies Walmart's motion to dismiss or strike the amended complaint, and grants Walmart's motion to compel arbitration.
- By clicking 'I agree,' I expressly acknowledge that I have read, understood, and considered the consequences of this Agreement, including THAT THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS AN ARBITRATION PROVISION WHICH MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE PARTIES; that I affirmatively agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement; and that I am legally competent to enter into this Agreement.
- The arbitration provision includes a broad delegation clause giving the arbitrator 'exclusive authority to resolve any dispute arising out of or relating to [the arbitration provision's] interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation.'