Fowler v. DoorDash Essentials, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ARTRELLE FOWLER, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:25-CV-1097 HEA
)
DOORDASH ESSENTIALS, LLC., 	)
d/b/a Doordash, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants DoorDash Essentials, LLC and
Jerod Wright’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. (ECF No. 12). 	Plaintiff Artelle
Fowler did not respond to Defendants’ motion. The time to respond has expired.
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration will be
granted.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff brings claims of employment discrimination and retaliation against
his former employer, Defendant DoorDash Essentials, LLC (“Doordash”). 	He
alleges the following three counts against Doordash under the Missouri Human
Rights 	Act 	(“MHRA”): 	“Racial 	Discrimination,” 	“Color 	Discrimination,”
Retaliation, and Hostile Work Environment (Counts I, II, III, and V). 	Plaintiff also
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 18 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

alleges a common law “Garden Variety Emotional Distress” claim against his former
manager, Defendant Wright (Count IV).1
Defendants did not file an answer in this case, but rather they filed a motion
to compel arbitration. 	In their motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff and
Doordash entered into a mutual, binding arbitration agreement that requires the
parties to resolve any dispute that may arise between them through binding
arbitration. 	Defendants move that the Court enforce the agreement and compel the
parties to resolve this dispute in arbitration.
II. 	Discussion
The 	Federal 	Arbitration 	Act 	(“FAA”) 	applies 	to 	contracts 	evidencing
transactions “involving commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 2; Hoffman v. Cargill Inc., 236 F.3d
458, 461 (8th Cir. 2001). 	The FAA provides:
A written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving
commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of
such contract or transaction . . . or an agreement in writing to submit to
arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract,
transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save
upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract.
9 U.S.C. § 2. 	The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision broadly as
exercising the full scope of Congress’s commerce-clause power. 	Allied–Bruce
1 In an Opinion, Memorandum, and Order dated today’s date, the Court found
that Plaintiff’s common law claim against Defendant Wright is preempted by the
MHRA, and that Defendant Wright was fraudulently joined in this suit.
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 18 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 273–77 (1995). 	Here, Plaintiff does not
contest Defendants’ assertion that the FAA is applicable to the contract at issue, and
the Court finds the statute applies.
Under the FAA:
A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another
to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any
United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have
jurisdiction under title 28, in a civil action or in admiralty of the subject
matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties, for
an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided
for in such agreement.
9 U.S.C. § 4. 	The FAA reflects a “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration.”
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011). “[C]ourts must place
arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts” and enforce them
according to their terms. 	Id. 	“[A]ny doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable
issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the
construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a
like defense to arbitrability.” 	Lyster v. Ryan's Fam. Steak Houses, Inc., 239 F.3d
943, 945 (8th Cir. 2001). 	Accordingly, where there is an enforceable agreement to
arbitrate, federal courts “shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to
arbitration.” 	9 U.S.C. § 4.
“[W]hen deciding whether to compel arbitration, a court asks whether a valid
agreement to arbitrate exists, and if so, whether the dispute falls within the scope of
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 18 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

that agreement.” Newspaper Guild of St. Louis, Loc. 36047, TNG-CWA v. St. Louis
Post Dispatch, LLC, 641 F.3d 263, 266 (8th Cir. 2011).
In their Motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff is bound by an Arbitration
Agreement that he agreed to when he accepted a position with Doordash. 	In support
of their motion, Defendants presented evidence that on April 14, 2022, during the
onboarding process, Plaintiff accessed, viewed, and affixed his electronic signature
to 	the 	Arbitration 	Agreement, 	a 	copy 	of 	which 	is 	attached 	to 	Defendants’
Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Compel Arbitration.2 (ECF No. 13,
Ex. 1-2).
The Arbitration Agreement states the following:
Except as it otherwise provides Agreement applies to any dispute
arising out of or relate to your employment with DoorDash Essentials,
LLC. (“Company”) or relationship with any of its agents, employees,
affiliates, successors, subsidiaries, assigns or parent companies or
termination of employment regardless of its date of accrual and
survives after the employment relationship terminates. Except as it
otherwise 	provides, 	this 	Agreement 	is 	intended 	to 	apply 	to 	the
resolution of disputes that otherwise would be resolved in a court of law
or before a forum other than arbitration. Except as otherwise stated in
this Agreement, you and the Company agree that any legal dispute or
controversy covered by this Agreement, or arising out of, relating to, or
concerning the existence, scope, validity, enforceability or breach of
2 A motion to compel arbitration is properly analyzed under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
the motion to dismiss standard, or Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, the summary judgment standard. 	City of
Benkelman, Nebraska v. Baseline Eng'g Corp., 867 F.3d 875, 881 (8th Cir. 2017). 	If a party
presents evidence outside the pleadings, which is not excluded by the Court, the motion must be
treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. 	Id. at 882. 	Plaintiff did not respond to
Defendants’ motion and has not objected to the admissibility or authenticity of the Arbitration
Agreement. The Court will consider the evidence Defendants provided in support of their motion
and will apply the summary judgment standard under Rule 56.
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 18 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

this Agreement, shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration in
accordance with the Employment Arbitration Rules of the American
Arbitration Association (“AAA Rules”) then in effect, and not by court
or jury trial, to be held (unless the parties agree in writing otherwise)….
[T]his Agreement also applies, without limitation, to disputes with any
entity or individual arising out of or related to … the employment
relationship or the termination of that relationship, … termination,
retaliation, discrimination or harassment … and claims arising under …
state statutes or regulations addressing the same or similar subject
matters, and all other federal or state legal claims arising out of or
relating 	to 	your 	employment 	or 	the 	termination 	of 	employment
(including without limitation torts and post-employment defamation or
retaliation).
…
BY SIGNING AND NOT OPTING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT,
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND
YOU ARE WAIVING YOUR RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.
(ECF No. 13, Ex. 2 at 11-14)
After review of the record, the Court finds Defendants presented evidence
establishing that Plaintiff entered into a mutual, binding Arbitration Agreement with
Doordash, and that the Arbitration Agreement not only covers claims by Plaintiff
against Doordash, but that it also applies to Plaintiff’s claims, to the extent they are
valid, against Defendant Wright, Plaintiff’s former manager. There is also evidence
that Plaintiff’s claims in this suit, which involve his employment with Doordash, are
covered by the terms of the Arbitration Agreement. 	Therefore, the Court finds a
valid agreement to arbitrate exists, and that Plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 18 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

of that agreement. 	Newspaper Guild of St. Louis, Local 36047, TNG-CWA, 641
F.3d at 266. The Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration.
The FAA requires a federal district court to stay an action pending an
arbitration rather than to dismiss it. 	Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 480 (2024)
(citing 9 U.S.C. § 3). 	Therefore, the Court will stay the matter pending the outcome
of arbitration.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants DoorDash Essentials, LLC and
Jerod Wright’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. [ECF No. 12]
IT 	IS 	FURTHER 	ORDERED 	that 	this 	matter 	is 	STAYED 	pending
arbitration. 	The parties shall provide the Court with a status report regarding the
arbitration process at the conclusion of that process.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall administratively
close this case.
Dated this 5 th day of December, 2025.
________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 18 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>