OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Prerna Singh brings this action against Defendants Meetup LLC (“Meetup”) and David Siegel, asserting claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq., the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§2601, et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), N.Y. Executive Law §§290, et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§8-101, et seq. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §2, et seq., or, in the alternative, to dismiss Singh’s First Amended Complaint in part pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, the motion to compel arbitration is granted and the case is stayed pending arbitration. I. Background A. Factual Background Singh’s First Amended Complaint makes many factual allegations in support of her discrimination, sexual harassment, interference, retaliation, and aiding and abetting claims. (ECF No. 17 (“FAC”).) In view of the narrow issue presented by the pending motion to compel arbitration, the following summary is focused primarily on the factual allegations relevant to Singh’s sexual harassment claims. These facts are assumed true for the purposes of this opinion. Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739, 740-41 (2d Cir. 2013). MeetUp is a social media platform with its principal place of business in New York. (Id. 20.) David Siegel is MeetUp’s CEO. (Id. 21.) On or about September 14, 2020, Singh began working at MeetUp as Senior Director of Product. (Id. 32.) As a condition of employment, Singh entered into a mandatory predispute arbitration agreement with MeetUp. (Id. 109.) In February 2022, MeetUp promoted Singh to Vice President of Product, and in early 2023, Singh began a new role as Head of Member Growth. (Id.
42, 55.) Singh alleges that Siegel “subjected her to a hostile work environment on the basis of sex” throughout her employment at MeetUp. (Id. 65.) Specifically, Singh alleges that “Siegel marginalized Singh on the basis of sex by, among other things, crediting male employees with some of her accomplishments, ignoring her contributions and/or claiming them as his own, assigning projects to male employees over her, and interrupting her in meetings.” (Id. 67.) Siegel allegedly “exhibited a pattern of discounting Singh’s contributions and favoring male employees over her,” credited a male employee for Singh’s recruiting and hiring accomplishments, and once presented one of Singh’s ideas as his own and assigned a male employee to lead the ensuing project. (Id.
