Kyere, Jr. v. Durand, et al.

Summary

The Appellate Court of Maryland held that doctors employed by LifeBridge could compel arbitration under an arbitration clause in the plaintiff’s employment agreement, even though they were nons signatories, because the claims concerned actions allegedly taken within their agency relationship with LifeBridge. The court further held that the arbitration clause was broad and ambiguous as to the scope of particular claims, so the arbitrator, rather than the court, must initially determine the arbitrability of those claims. The court affirmed the circuit court’s order compelling arbitration.

Holdings

1. The appellees had standing to compel arbitration under the arbitration clause in Kyere's employment agreement even though they did not sign the agreement in their individual capacities.
2. The claims were not clearly beyond the scope of the arbitration clause, which broadly covered any controversy or claim arising out of Kyere's employment rather than only claims arising out of the employment contract.
3. The arbitrator, rather than the court, must initially resolve any questions about whether factual allegations supporting particular claims place those claims outside the arbitration clause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether nonsignatory physicians who were employees or agents of the signatory employer had standing to compel arbitration of claims brought against them individually.
2. Whether Kyere's claims against the appellees were within the scope of the broad arbitration clause covering any controversy or claim arising out of his employment.
3. Whether unresolved questions about the arbitrability of particular claims had to be decided by the arbitrator rather than the court.

Disposition

affirmed