PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL KATZ, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2002-02-13
No. 3D01-3126
Before FLETCHER and RAMIREZ, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.
807 So. 2d 173 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2002) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Prudential Securities appeals the denial of its motion to compel arbitration of a whistleblower claim brought by former employee Michael Katz. The court reverses, holding that Katz's agreement to arbitrate claims relating to his employment extends to his Florida Whistle Blower Act claim.

Holding

The arbitration clause expressly covers Katz's claim and is enforceable. The court held that Florida Whistle Blower Act claims are not exempt from arbitration and must be resolved through the agreed arbitration process, consistent with the strong federal and state policy favoring arbitration.

Headnotes

[1] An arbitration agreement covering claims relating to employment or termination of employment is enforceable for statutory claims, including those under the Florida Whistl…

[2] Courts indulge every reasonable presumption to uphold arbitration proceedings and resolve all doubts in favor of arbitration.

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Key Quotes

“arbitration is a favored means of dispute resolution and courts indulge every reasonable presumption to uphold proceedings resulting in an award”

Establishes the strong policy preference for arbitration in Florida law

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Michael Katz was hired by Prudential Securities in February 1996 as a financial advisor under an employment agreement requiring arbitration of any cla…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Florida Whistleblower Act Arbitration Agreement Enforceability At-Will Employment Motion To Compel Arbitration

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Whistleblower Act cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
NESBITT, Senior Judge.

NESBITT, Senior Judge.

Employer Prudential Securities, Inc. appeals an order denying its Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Litigation. We reverse.

In February of 1996, pursuant to an employment agreement that outlined the parties’ rights with regard to employment duties, performance, term, compensation, customer records, and remedies, Michael Katz was hired by Prudential as a financial advisor. In that agreement Katz promised that he would submit to arbitration “any claim or controversy ... relating to his employment or termination of [his] employment.” A second document Katz executed expressly stated that he agreed to arbitrate “any dispute, claim or controversy.” On September 30, 1999, Katz sent a letter to Prudential, expressing concerns about what he perceived as his employer’s illegal conduct. October 22, 1999, Prudential responded, denying the allegations. Less than a week later, Katz’s employment was terminated. Thereafter, Katz sought statutory relief under the Florida Whistle Blower Act, sections 448.101 through 448.105 Florida Statutes (2000). Prudential filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, which the trial judge denied.

Katz was an at will employee whose employment could be terminated at any time. The agreement he signed promised that he would submit to arbitration any claim or controversy relating to his employment or termination. The U.S. Supreme court enforced such an agreement in a case claiming age discrimination in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991). Both Florida and Federal courts have consistently read arbitration clauses as applicable to a broad range of actions. The Florida Supreme Court has held that “arbitration is a favored means of dispute resolution and courts indulge every reasonable presumption to uphold proceedings resulting in an award.” Roe v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 533 So. 2d 279, 281 (Fla.1988). That principle was applied in Ronbeck Const. Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), where the court held that Florida courts, like Federal courts, should resolve all doubts in favor of arbitration rather than against it.1 See Sabates v. International Medical Cen ters, Inc., 450 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). As set out in Pierce v. J.W. Charles-Bush Securities, Inc., 603 So. 2d 625, 627-28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992):

In a steady drumbeat of cases since Keating, [Southland Corporation v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 104 S.Ct. 852, 79 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984)], the Court has reversed a number of decisions precluding arbitration for various statutory claims. In Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985), the Court rejected a long line of cases which had held that arbitration was inappropriate, and thus could not be compelled even if agreed, for antitrust and RICO claims. Similarly, in Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987), the Court ended the long held belief that securities fraud claims, as here, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5 cannot be ordered to agreed arbitration. And, in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corporation, 500 U.S. 20, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991), the Court found no exemption even for civil rights claims, in that case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. If civil rights, antitrust and securities fraud claims are not inappropriate for arbitration, it is very difficult to imagine a civil claim in which an agreement to arbitrate would not be enforced. See also Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985); and Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974)

The arbitration clause at issue expressly covers Katz’s claim and clearly controls as to the instant controversy. We see no reason for a claim under the Florida Whistle Blower Act to employ an analysis different than that employed in the cases outlined above. Accordingly, the order under review is reversed.

. Katz relies on Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633, 638 (Fla.1999), as mandating a different result. We disagree. Seifert considered a different agreement in a different factual context. We see nothing in Seifert as changing the well established authority requiring the enforcement of arbitration agreements.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Beazer Homes Corp. v. Bailey, 940 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
    …out their “business relationship” would be submitted to arbitration. Merely because the dispute or claim is founded on breach of a statute rather than breach of contract, does not exempt it from arbitration. See Prudential Securities, Inc. v. Katz, 807 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). If the statutory cause of action is based, as in this case, on [*462] matters growing out of a contract which covers the dispute, and relies on the same facts as the dispute which is subject to arbitration, there is no basis to e…
  • Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Saldukas, 851 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
    …to support its ruling. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Adams, 791 So. 2d 25, 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). However, any doubts concerning whether a waiver has occurred should be resolved in favor of arbitration. Prudential Sec., Inc. v. Katz, 807 So. 2d 173, 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). In this appeal, Raymond James asserts that the only issue is whether it waived its right to arbitrate. However, when Saldukas and Sestal LLC filed their arbitration claim, Raymond James repeatedly asserted that there was no…
  • Morales v. Rafael J. Perez, M.D., 952 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
    …DCA 2004)). In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, we are mindful of the policy favoring arbitration and recognize that any doubts concerning the scope of arbitration should be resolved in favor of arbitration. Prudential Secs., Inc. v. Katz, 807 So. 2d 173, 174 (Fla. 3d [*608] DCA 2002) (citing Ronbeck Const. Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)). We must address three issues in ruling on the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. First, we must determine whether the…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw