Order | Filed: July 10, 2026
| Entered: July 10, 2026
Rodriguez v. R.Potential Inc. et al
Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act | Florida Southern
Order on Motion to Compel
PAPERLESS ORDER granting Defendants r.Potential, Inc. and Adecco, Inc.'s (together, "Defendants") 9 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay ("Motion"). In their Motion, Defendants argue that "Plaintiff agreed that he would submit to arbitration any claims or disputes, including employment-related ones, that he may have with r.Potential, and its parents, including Adecco, in accordance with the Employment Agreement[.]" [ECF No. 9, Mot. at 1]. Section 12 of Plaintiff's Employment Agreement states that Plaintiff and r.Potential "agree that any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of or relating to th[e] [Employment] Agreement, the employment relationship between the Parties, or the termination of the employment relationship... shall be resolved by binding arbitration[.]" [ECF No. 9-1, Employment Agreement at 9]. "The agreement to arbitrate includes any Claims that... [Plaintiff] may have against [r.Potential]... and/or [r.Potential's]... parent, subsidiary, or affiliated entities[.]" Id.. Plaintiff does not oppose arbitration of his claims against r.Potential. [ECF No. 11, Resp. in Opp. at 8]. However, Plaintiff contends that "Adecco has failed to establish any recognized basis to enforce an arbitration agreement it did not sign." Id.. The Court disagrees.
"Equitable estoppel allows a non-signatory to compel arbitration" when "the allegations are of interdependent and concerted misconduct between a non-signatory and a signatory."ATCi Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 16-23374-CIV, 2016 WL 8739604, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016); Legrand v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, No. 10-62476-CIV, 2011 WL 13217283, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2011) (compelling arbitration by a non-signatory and finding that "a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement may compel arbitration when the signatory to the contract containing the arbitration clause raises allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the non-signatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract."); Chemaly v. Lampert, 174 F.4th 843, 855-57 (11th Cir. 2026) (same). That is the situation here. Plaintiff sued Defendants for terminating his employment, asserting three identical claims against Defendants under the Florida Whistleblower Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. [ECF No. 1, Comp. at 11-18]. The Complaint alleges that "Defendants were co-employers or joint employers of Plaintiff." Id. at 2. During his employment, Defendants, together, "directed and reviewed Plaintiff's work, controlled [his] work assignments, modified and set [his] employment terms and conditions, co-determined the essential terms and conditions of [his] employment, set [his] work schedule, determined [his] benefits, and controlled Plaintiff's" leave. Id.. Importantly, Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants operated as a single, common, interconnected entity" and that they "shared resources and had common interests and ownership." Id..
Further, the clear language of the arbitration agreement extends its application to Adecco as r.Potential's parent or affiliated entity. Importantly, Section 22 of the Employment Agreement states that "[i]t is understood and agreed that [r.Potential]... and its... parents, subsidiaries, and/or affiliated entities... are intended to be third party beneficiaries to arbitration provisions of this Agreement," and that "any Claim(s) that may be asserted against one or more of the Third Party Beneficiaries shall be resolved pursuant to the arbitration provisions of this Agreement in the same manner as Claim(s) made against [r.Potential]." [ECF No. 9-1, Employment Agreement at 11]. Accordingly, Defendant's 9 Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED, and the proceeding is STAYED pending arbitration. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 7/10/2026. (ia00)