OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Jessica Bristol brings this employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq.; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§290 to 29; and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y. City Admin. Code §§8-101 to131, alleging her former employer, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (“Securitas”), discriminated against her because of her pregnancy and disability. See Complaint, filed Dec. 13, 2021 (Docket # 1) (“Comp.”), at 9-10. Before the Court is defendant’s motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §1, et seq. (“FAA”).1 For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is granted.2 I. BACKGROUND Securitas “provides uniformed security officer and patrol services for businesses and organizations.” Comp. 11. Bristol began working at Securitas in April 2016. See id. 20; see also Securitas Dispute Resolution Agreement Acknowledgement, dated Apr. 20, 2016, annexed as Ex. A to Fredericks Decl. (“DRA Acknowledgement”). During the onboarding process, Bristol signed a form acknowledging that she had received a copy of Securitas’s Dispute Resolution Agreement (the “Agreement”). The form stated: I have received a copy of the Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (the “Company”) Dispute Resolution Agreement (the “Agreement”) and I have read and I understand all of the terms contained in the Agreement. I understand that employment or continued employment at the Company constitutes acceptance of this Agreement and its terms. I further acknowledge that the Company and I are mutually bound by this Agreement and its terms. DRA Acknowledgement at 1. The Agreement (annexed as Ex. B to Fredericks Decl.) states that it “applies to your employment whether or not you sign the acknowledgment, which is intended simply to confirm that you have received and read your copy.” Agreement at 1. In its first paragraph, the Agreement states that it is an “Arbitration Agreement.” Id. The first paragraph further states: “Under the terms set forth below, both you and the Company mutually agree and thus are required to resolve claims either may have against the other by Arbitration instead of in a court of law.” Id. (emphasis added). A later provision provides that the Agreement “appl[ies] to the resolution of disputes that otherwise would be resolved in a court of law or before a forum other than arbitration,” including, “without limitation, disputes relating to the interpretation or application of this Agreement.” Id. at 2. The Agreement recognizes that a court would have to resolve any disputes “over the enforceability, revocability, or validity of the Agreement.” Id. at 2. The Agreement applies to “all disputes regarding the employment relationship.” Id. The Agreement states that it “is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act,” id. at 1, and requires that disputes that fall under its terms are “to be resolved only by an Arbitrator through final and binding arbitration and not by way of court or jury trial,” id. at 2. According to the complaint, several years after beginning employment with Securitas, Bristol became pregnant, and in September 2019 she was diagnosed as having a high-risk pregnancy. See Comp.
27-28. After Bristol underwent a surgical procedure, her physicians advised her not to stand for long periods of time, and Bristol provided Securitas with a physician’s note to that effect. See id.
