OPINION & ORDER Current and former employees of TIAA Bank bring this action under the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and analogous state-law statutes. Defendant TIAA Bank has moved to compel arbitration as to two named Plaintiffs’ claims arising before December 1, 2016, pursuant to arbitration agreements between TIAA and these two parties. TIAA Bank also asks to stay this entire litigation pending the arbitration of these claims. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS TIAA’s motion to compel arbitration but DENIES its request for a stay. I. BACKGROUND A. Plaintiffs’ Employment with TIAA Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed. TIAA “is [a] federally chartered bank” that “does business across the United States of America, including, but not limited to, regularly conducting business in the States of New York, Florida, and New Jersey.” Complaint, Dkt. No. 2, 15. Plaintiffs in this action are Richard Martin, Lori Lesser, Lediana Llerena, and David Gutfeld. All four individuals either worked or currently work for TIAA Bank or its predecessor, Everbank, as Retail Loan Officers (RLOs) in these three states. Id.
10-13, 45. Their primary duty was to sell residential mortgage loans. Id. 50. TIAA paid them “in part [or] in whole in commissions.” Id. 46. TIAA provided the terms of RLOs’ compensation in documents titled Performance Guides. As TIAA explains, “[t]he purpose and scope of the Performance Guides was to enumerate” the compensation of these employees. TIAA Br., Dkt. No. 40-1, at 3. The Guides therefore describe things like these employees’ “(a)…cash commission opportunities; (b) the method for calculation of cash commission compensation; (c) the timing for payment of cash commission compensation; (d) applicable performance standards; and (e) other procedures and requirements for which the [RLO] is responsible.” Id.; see, e.g., Dkt. No. 44, Ex. A (2013 Guide). These Performance Guides did not remain consistent throughout Plaintiffs’ employment at TIAA; instead, they were subject to periodic revision. Before the Court are four Guides, respectively issued in 2013, 2014, 2016, and 2018. See Dkt. No. 44, Ex. A (2013 Guide); Dkt. No. 44, Ex. B (2014 Guide); Dkt. No. 44, Ex. C (2016 Guide); Dkt. No. 44, Ex. D (2018 Guide). For purposes of this case, the 2013 and 2014 Guides differ from those issued in 2016 and 2018 in one material respect: the former contain an arbitration clause, and the latter do not. Both the 2013 and 2014 Guides contained the following provision: Disputes Any dispute relating to or arising under or in connection with this Guide shall be submitted to mandatory arbitration in Duval County, Florida, in accordance with the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect, and judgment upon the award rendered pursuant to such arbitration may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction. 2013 Guide at 13; 2014 Guide at 27. In 2016, however, TIAA removed this arbitration provision from its new Performance Guide. See 2016 Guide. The 2018 Guide likewise did not contain an arbitration provision. See 2018 Guide. B. Procedural History The history of the parties’ litigation begins in arbitration. In September 2018, three former RLOs — including one of the Plaintiffs here, Llerena — filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against TIAA. See Dkt. No. 44, Ex. G. They alleged the same wage-and-hour claims as the ones here. See id.
