OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION This putative class and collective action brought by Plaintiff Jose Paguay involves claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) for unpaid overtime and wages and seeks class-wide injunctive relief pertaining to an arbitration agreement signed by Plaintiff and other putative class members. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to individual arbitration. (ECF No. 27.) While the motion to compel arbitration falls within my authority under Section 636(b)(1)(A)1, Defendants’ related motion to dismiss this case as a result of the arbitration, and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for Rule 23(b)(2) class certification, do not fall within my referral and thus I do not address them in this decision. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. RELEVANT FACTS From approximately January 10, 2023 to February 18, 2023, Plaintiff was employed at a restaurant (the “Restaurant”) owned and operated by Defendants. (Compl. 29.) On January 27, 2023, Plaintiff executed an arbitration agreement (the “Agreement”) with the Restaurant. The Agreement states that Plaintiff agrees to “submit any and all Covered Claims arising out of [his] employment with or termination from the Company to the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) for final and binding arbitration by one arbitrator under the AAA’s Employment Arbitration Rules (as modified).” (ECF No. 29-1, 1.) “Covered Claims” are defined to encompass 10 categories of employment-related claims, including “claims relating to compensation, promotion, demotion or other employment action.” (Id.) The Agreement provides that Plaintiff and the Restaurant are barred from litigation in any court for any Covered Claim and waives the right to bring “any Covered Claims as a representative or members of a class or collective action” as well as “any and all rights to a trial by jury or judge of any Covered Claim.” (Id.
7, 8.) It further provides that Plaintiff agrees to submit any arbitration demand “no later than one hundred-eighty (180) calendar days after [his] claim arises” or the claim will be resolved against him notwithstanding any lengthier statute of limitations period. (Id. 6.) The Agreement also provides that “if any provision of this Agreement, or the application of such provision shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, the remaining provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.” (Id. 13.) Plaintiff brought this action on September 25, 2023. He alleges that throughout his employment at the Restaurant, he was required to clock out for lunch but work through his lunch break, resulting in the deprivation of overtime and regular wages in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. (ECF No. 18 32.) Plaintiff further alleges that his employer failed to provide adequate wage notices and statements in violation of the NYLL. (Id.
