ANTHONY v. DOLGENCORP LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
MICKEL ANTHONY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOLGENCORP, LLC,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
CASE NO. 4:24-CV-194 (CDL)
O R D E R
Mickel 	Anthony 	alleges 	that 	he 	was 	harassed 	and 	ultimately
terminated 	from 	his 	job 	at 	a 	Dollar 	General 	store 	because 	of 	his
religion, 	in 	violation 	of 	Title 	VII 	of 	the 	Civil 	Rights 	Act 	of
1964, 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2000e, 	et 	seq. 	Defendant 	Dolgencorp, 	LLC
filed 	a 	motion 	to 	compel 	arbitration, 	asserting 	that 	Anthony
agreed 	to 	arbitrate 	any 	claims 	arising 	out 	of 	his 	employment.
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	the 	Court 	grants 	the 	motion 	to
compel arbitration (ECF No. 32).
The 	Federal 	Arbitration 	Act 	“reflects 	a 	‘liberal 	federal
policy 	favoring 	arbitration.’” 	Tejon 	v. 	Zeus 	Networks, 	LLC, 	174
F.4th 	1322, 	1326 	(11th 	Cir. 	2026) 	(quoting 	AT&T 	Mobility 	LLC 	v.
Concepcion, 	563 	U.S. 	333, 	339 	(2011)). 	Parties 	cannot 	be 	forced
to 	arbitrate 	if 	they 	have 	not 	agreed 	to 	do 	so, 	but 	if 	“the
existence 	of 	the 	agreement 	is 	not 	genuinely 	disputed, 	the 	court
must 	compel 	arbitration.” 	Lamonaco 	v. 	Experian 	Info. 	Sols.,
Case 4:24-cv-00194-CDL Document 42 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Inc., 	141 	F.4th 	1343, 	1347 	(11th 	Cir. 	2025) 	(citing 	9 	U.S.C.
§ 4). 	Here, 	Anthony 	does 	not 	seriously 	dispute 	the 	existence 	of
an arbitration agreement.
The 	present 	record 	establishes 	that 	Dollar 	General 	hired
Anthony 	as 	a 	sales 	associate 	on 	October 	2, 	2023. 	Roach 	Decl.
¶ 4, 	ECF 	No. 	32-2. 	Anthony 	completed 	the 	new 	hire 	paperwork
through 	Dollar 	General’s 	online 	portal. 	Id. 	He 	agreed 	to
complete 	the 	online 	hiring 	process 	using 	an 	electronic
signature. 	Id.; 	Roach 	Decl. 	Ex. 	1, 	Anthony 	E-Signature
Agreement 	(stating 	that 	Anthony’s 	initials, 	in 	conjunction 	with
his 	personal 	password 	for 	the 	Dollar 	General 	computer 	system,
will 	constitute 	Anthony’s 	electronic 	signature). 	On 	December
30, 	2023, 	after 	Anthony 	turned 	eighteen, 	Dollar 	General
presented 	him 	with 	an 	arbitration 	agreement. 	Roach 	Decl. 	¶ 5.
The 	agreement 	states 	that 	with 	the 	exception 	of 	certain 	claims
that 	are 	not 	at 	issue 	here, 	“any 	legal 	claims 	or 	disputes” 	that
an 	employee 	has 	against 	Dollar 	General 	arising 	out 	of 	his
employment 	or 	his 	termination 	will 	be 	addressed 	in 	arbitration.
Roach 	Decl. 	Ex. 	2, 	Arbitration 	Agreement. 	The 	agreement 	states
that 	an 	employee 	can 	opt 	out 	of 	the 	arbitration 	agreement 	by
submitting 	an 	arbitration 	opt 	out 	form. 	Id. 	The 	form 	provided
the 	employee 	with 	two 	options. 	The 	first 	option 	stated: 	“I
would 	like 	to 	take 	up 	to 	30 	days 	after 	the 	start 	of 	my
employment 	with 	Dollar 	General 	to 	review 	and 	consider 	this
Case 4:24-cv-00194-CDL Document 42 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 4

3
agreement. 	I 	understand 	that 	if 	I 	do 	not 	expressly 	opt 	out
within 	30 	days 	. 	. 	. 	using 	the 	process 	described 	above,” 	the
employee 	and 	Dollar 	General 	will 	be 	bound 	by 	the 	terms 	of 	the
arbitration 	agreement. 	Id. 	The 	second 	option 	stated: 	“I 	agree
to 	the 	terms 	of 	the 	Agreement. 	I 	understand 	and 	acknowledge
that 	by 	checking 	this 	box, 	both 	Dollar 	General 	and 	I 	will 	be
bound 	by 	the 	terms 	of 	the 	Agreement.” 	Dolgencorp 	presented
evidence 	that 	Anthony 	selected 	the 	second 	option, 	agreeing 	to
the 	terms 	of 	the 	arbitration 	agreement, 	and 	electronically
signed 	the 	form. 	Id.; 	Roach 	Decl. 	¶ 7. 	Dolgencorp 	also
presented 	evidence 	that 	Anthony 	did 	not 	submit 	an 	arbitration
opt out form. 	Roach Decl. ¶ 8.
Anthony 	did 	not 	point 	to 	any 	evidence 	to 	dispute
Dolgencorp’s 	evidence 	that 	he 	affirmatively 	accepted 	the
arbitration 	agreement 	on 	December 	30, 	2023. 	Anthony 	also 	did
not 	point 	to 	any 	evidence 	that 	he 	opted 	out 	of 	the 	arbitration
agreement. 	Thus, 	the 	present 	record 	demonstrates 	that 	Anthony
agreed 	to 	the 	arbitration 	agreement, 	and 	there 	are 	no 	genuine
fact disputes on this issue.
As 	discussed 	above, 	the 	arbitration 	agreement 	covers 	any
legal 	claims 	or 	disputes 	that 	Anthony 	may 	have 	against 	Dollar
General 	and 	its 	affiliated 	companies 	arising 	out 	of 	his
employment 	with 	Dollar 	General 	or 	his 	termination 	from 	the
company. 	Roach 	Decl. 	Ex. 	2, 	Arbitration 	Agreement.
Case 4:24-cv-00194-CDL Document 42 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Accordingly, 	Anthony 	is 	required 	to 	arbitrate 	his 	claims 	against
Dolgencorp. 	The 	parties 	shall 	proceed 	to 	arbitration 	on 	all 	of
Anthony’s 	claims 	against 	Dolgencorp 	in 	accordance 	with 	the 	terms
of 	their 	agreement. 	The 	Court 	stays 	all 	proceedings 	in 	this
Court 	pending 	arbitration. 	See 	9 	U.S.C. 	§ 	3. 	Every 	ninety 	days
following 	entry 	of 	this 	order, 	the 	parties 	shall 	file 	a 	joint
status 	report 	to 	update 	the 	Court 	on 	the 	progress 	of
arbitration.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of October, 2026.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 4:24-cv-00194-CDL Document 42 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 4