United States: Fourth Circuit Enforces Arbitration Clause Over Franchisee Challenge

Muriithi v. Shuttle Express, Inc., 712 F.3d 173 (4th Cir. 2013)

In a recent case involving three different challenges to an arbitration clause in a franchise agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the arbitration clause was enforceable despite the agreement's inclusion of (1) a class-action waiver, (2) a fee-splitting clause, and (3) a one-year limitations provision.

In Muriithi v. Shuttle Express, Inc., 712 F.3d 173 (4th Cir. 2013), the plaintiff, Samuel Muriithi, was a driver for defendant Shuttle Express, a shuttle service operating in the area of the Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport. Muriithi filed suit in federal court against Shuttle Express, asserting claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and under Maryland law. He alleged that in 2007 Shuttle Express had induced him to sign a "Unit Franchise Agreement" based on misrepresentations about his compensation and further alleged that the franchise agreement wrongly classified him as an "independent contractor" or "franchisee" instead of an "employee." Muriithi sought to bring the claims as a class action against Shuttle Express.

Shuttle Express moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4, based on the following arbitration clause in the parties' franchise agreement:

Except as provided below, any controversy arising out of this Agreement shall be submitted to the American Arbitration Association at its office in or nearest to Baltimore, Maryland, for final and binding arbitration in accordance with its commercial rules and procedures which are in effect at the time the arbitration is filed.

. at *3-4. As noted, the agreement also contained a class-action waiver, a fee-splitting clause, and a one-year limitations provision.

The district court denied the request to compel arbitration, holding that although the claims brought by Muriithi were within the scope of the arbitration clause, the arbitration clause was unenforceable. Specifically, the district court concluded that three provisions were unconscionable: First, the court addressed the arbitration provision's fee-splitting clause, which provided "[t]he parties shall bear their own costs including without limitation attorney's fees, and shall each bear one-half (1/2) of the fees and costs of the arbitrator." Id. at *4. Based on the district court's review of Muriithi's 2009 federal income tax return and in light of Muriithi's argument that the arbitration fees for which he would be responsible would be more than the amount he could recover at arbitration, the district court found that the cost of arbitration would be prohibitively expensive and would improperly deter arbitration.

Second, the district court found that the class-action waiver within the arbitration clause was unconscionable because individual suits were an unrealistic alternative, given that the potential recovery of each claimant would be less than the arbitration fees.

Third, the district court considered a provision in the franchise agreement setting a one-year limitations period on claims relating to the agreement. The district court held that the contractual limitations period impermissibly interfered with Muriithi's statutory rights because the FLSA provides a two-year statute of limitations.

The district court found that the three provisions were substantively unconscionable and "so permeated" the arbitration clause that they could not be severed. As a result, the court held that the arbitration clause was unenforceable and denied Shuttle Express's motion to compel arbitration.

The Fourth Circuit reversed, addressing each of the three provisions in turn and finding that none was unconscionable. First, the Fourth Circuit addressed the class-action waiver. It explained that, subsequent to the district court's decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), which "prohibited application of the general contract defense of unconscionability to invalidate an otherwise valid arbitration agreement" when the defense is based merely on the agreement's inclusion of a class-action waiver. Id. at *13. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit expressly declined to limit Concepcion to the California state law with which it dealt.

Second, the Fourth Circuit addressed the fee-splitting clause and found that Muriithi had failed to establish that the arbitration would be prohibitively expensive. The court explained that Muriithi was required to make three showings: "(1) the cost of arbitration; (2) his ability to pay; and (3) the difference in cost between arbitration of his dispute and litigation." Id. at *15. The Fourth Circuit explained that the arbitration clause could be found unconscionable and therefore unenforceable if Muriithi met the "substantial evidentiary burden" of showing that the costs would be "'so prohibitive as to effectively deny the employee access to the arbitral forum.'" Id. at *16-17 (quoting Bradford v. Rockwell Semiconductor Sys., Inc., 238 F.3d 549, 554 (4th Cir. 2001)).

Muriithi, however, failed to meet that burden, according to the Fourth Circuit. The court found Muriithi had failed to present any evidence of the costs of arbitration because his only proffer was based on arbitration fees charged by three arbitrators in an unrelated matter in the Virgin Islands. The Fourth Circuit also found Muriithi had failed to establish the value of his claims, which is necessary in order to calculate fees under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. Because Muriithi failed to make those showings, the Fourth Circuit concluded he had not met his burden of demonstrating prohibitive costs. The court noted that its conclusion was further supported by the offer made by Shuttle Express, at oral argument, to pay all arbitration costs; the court warned, however, that the issue of prohibitive costs would not be made moot by an "eleventh hour" agreement to disregard the fee-splitting provision.

Finally, the Fourth Circuit addressed the one-year limitations provision. It found the limitations provision was not within the arbitration clause. This was a crucial finding, the court explained, because a court's determination of whether an arbitration clause is enforceable under the FAA is based on a challenge to the arbitration clause in particular, not to the agreement as a whole. Challenges to the agreement (as opposed to the arbitration provision) must be raised to the adjudicator (whether court or arbitrator) only after the court decides the motion to compel arbitration.

The one-year limitations provision, by its own terms, applied to "any arbitration, suit, action or other proceeding relating to this Agreement," not solely to arbitrations. The Fourth Circuit further noted there was no "overlap" between the limitations period and the arbitration clause, and the arbitration clause itself was silent as to a limitations period. The Fourth Circuit therefore concluded that issues related to the limitations provision would be reserved for the arbitrator.

Based on its separate analysis of each of the three provisions at issue, the Fourth Circuit concluded the arbitration agreement was enforceable. It therefore reversed the opinion of the district court, vacated the judgment and remanded the matter with instructions to compel arbitration -- with all costs of arbitration to be paid by Shuttle Express.

This case provides valuable guidance for understanding the circumstances under which an arbitration clause may be found to be enforceable and, more specifically, the standards under which challenges to such provisions are reviewed by the courts. First, relying on Concepcion, the Fourth Circuit has now clearly stated that the mere existence of a class-action waiver is insufficient for a finding of unconscionability. Second, a party challenging an arbitration provision on the grounds of prohibitive costs must satisfy a demanding evidentiary standard. Third, in determining whether an arbitration clause is enforceable, a court may consider only the clause itself, not the agreement as a whole. A final lesson is that a party's offer to disregard a fee-splitting provision, if made too late, may not prevent a court from considering whether a fee-splitting clause is unconscionable, but may bind the party to pay all costs.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions