In a favorable ruling for the staffing industry, a Massachusetts federal district court ruled that a temporary employee who brought claims against both a staffing agency and its client was compelled to arbitrate those claims against the client, notwithstanding the fact that the client was not a signatory to the employee’s arbitration agreement with the staffing agency.

After being terminated, the employee alleged discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against both the agency and the client. The staffing agency was dismissed from the case due to the arbitration agreement, and the client filed a motion seeking to compel arbitration of the employee’s claims. The court granted the motion, noting that the employee alleged “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct” by both the staffing agency and its client.

To read the case, see Dorinda Steel-Rogers v. Global Life Science, 2022 WL 3916362 (D. Mass. 2022).