DECISION & ORDER The motion by defendant to compel arbitration is denied. The cross-motion by plaintiff, who is self-represented, to amend her complaint is granted.BackgroundThis action arises out of plaintiff’s employment with defendant during the 2016 presidential election. Plaintiff was hired by defendant in August 2016 as a national phone bank administrator. She claims she was routinely overworked by her initial supervisor Camilo Jaime Sandoval-this included working seven days per week and ten hours per day. As the election approached, plaintiff was eventually assigned to work on the campaign’s Hispanic outreach efforts. Plaintiff contends that Sandoval did not like this promotion and subjected plaintiff to a hostile tirade.Plaintiff alleges that she worked in a horrible work environment from late September 2016 through the election. Plaintiff makes numerous allegations about this time period and accuses Sandoval and other supervisors of tracking plaintiffs whereabouts, trying to “find dirt on her,” cyberbullying and harassment.Defendant moves to compel arbitration and argues that plaintiff signed an employment agreement in which she expressly agreed to arbitrate any disputes arising out of or relating to her employment. Defendant argues that because all of plaintiff’s allegations relate to her employment, they should be subject to arbitration. In opposition, plaintiff claims that defendant relies on an arbitration provision in a non-disclosure agreement, not an employment agreement. In reply, defendant acknowledges that plaintiff’s New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) claims are not subject to arbitration and that defendant intends to respond to those claims when a responsive pleading is due.Discussion“It is a well settled principle of law in this state that a party cannot be compelled to submit to arbitration unless the agreement to arbitrate ‘expressly and unequivocally encompasses the subject matter of the particular dispute. Where…there is no agreement to arbitrate ‘all disputes’ arising out of the parties’ relationship but, rather, a limited arbitration clause relating to a specific type of dispute, the clause must be read conservatively if it is subject to more than one interpretation” (Trump v. Refco Properties, Inc., 194 AD2d 70, 74, 605 NYS2d 248 [1st Dept 1993]).Here, the arbitration clause states that:“Without limiting the Company’s or any other Trump Person’s right to commence a lawsuit in a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of New York, any dispute arising under or relating to this agreement may, at the sole discretion of each Trump Person, be submitted to binding arbitration in the State of New York pursuant to the rules for commercial arbitrations of the American Arbitration Association, and you hereby agree to and will not contest such submissions. Judgment upon the award rendered by an arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction” (plaintiff’s cross-motion, exh A,8b).As an initial matter, the Court observes that the arbitration clause confines arbitration to “any dispute arising under or relating to this agreement.” It does not require arbitration for any “dispute between the parties” or even “any dispute arising out of plaintiff’s employment.” And the agreement itself only includes a specific list of five prohibited acts on plaintiff’s part: no disclosure of confidential information, no disparagement, no competitive services, no competitive solicitation and no competitive intellectual property claims (id.
