OPINION & ORDER Petitioner Coretta Roddey (“Petitioner” or “Roddey”) seeks a preliminary injunction to stay one arbitration in Georgia and compel another arbitration in New York. Because Petitioner has not shown irreparable harm and the parties undisputedly agreed to arbitrate, Petitioner’s motion to enjoin the ongoing arbitration and compel a new arbitration is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED in its entirety. I. Factual Background and Procedural History1 Petitioner worked as a Principal Business Consultant for Respondent Infosys Limited (“Respondent” or “Infosys”) beginning in October 2014. (See Roddey Decl. 17.) As part of the onboarding process for her job, Petitioner signed a Mutual Arbitration Agreement with Respondent on November 7, 2014 (the “2014 Agreement”). (See id.; see also id. Ex. A at 4-8.)2 The 2014 Agreement provided that any arbitration would “take place in the county in which the Employee works or worked at the time the arbitrable dispute or claim arose” and would be “governed by the law of the state where Employee works or worked at the time the arbitrable dispute or claim arose.” (Id. at 7; see also Ghim Decl. 9.) Petitioner was a resident of Georgia, (see Roddey Decl. 18), and Petitioner’s offer letter indicated that Petitioner’s “work location would be Atlanta, GA,” (id. Ex. A at 14). However, Petitioner replied to her offer letter and requested that her work location be changed to New York. (See id. at 13.) The parties dispute whether Petitioner ultimately “worked” in New York or Georgia. (Compare, e.g., Pet.
7, 8, 11, 12-14, with Opp’n at 1, 2-3, 11; id. Ex. D (summary of Petitioner’s work assignments).) Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment on September 23, 2016. (Roddey Decl. 24.) On September 22, 2020, Petitioner filed a pro se demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) in New York City asserting claims of hostile work environment, wrongful termination based on race, and “garden variety” emotional distress (the “2020 Arbitration”). (See id. 27; see also id. Ex. A at 2-3.) On January 12, 2021, Respondent filed a response to Petitioner’s arbitration demand and asked that the arbitration be moved from New York City to Atlanta, Georgia. (See Opp’n at 3; see also id. Ex. C.) Petitioner filed pro se objections to the transfer. (See Opp’n at 3-4; see also id. Ex. J.) On February 5, 2021, the AAA determined that the arbitration would be held in Atlanta, Georgia because “the parties’ agreement stipulates the locale ‘shall take place in the county in which the employee works or worked at the time the arbitrable dispute or claim arose.’” (Opp’n at 4; see also id. Ex. K.) Counsel first appeared on Petitioner’s behalf in the 2020 Arbitration in April 2021. (See Roddey Decl. 11.) On July 13, 2021, Respondent sent Petitioner’s counsel a copy of a 2016 Mutual Arbitration Agreement (the “2016 Agreement”), which does not contain Petitioner’s signature, but which Respondent claims governs the dispute. (See Resp’t's Sur-Reply Ex. 4, at 2; see also Roddey Decl.
