Winsor v. Andrade et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-01036-KDB-WCM
SHAWN S. WINSOR,
Plaintiff,
v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
(USAA) AND
JUAN C. ANDRADE,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Dismiss or Stay (Doc. No. 7). The Court has carefully considered this motion and the Parties’
briefs and exhibits. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will GRANT the motion, compel
arbitration and stay this action pending the completion of arbitration.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) represents “a liberal federal policy favoring
arbitration agreements” and applies “to any arbitration agreement within the coverage of the
[FAA].” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983). Under
Section 2 of the FAA, a written arbitration provision “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. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that “courts must rigorously enforce arbitration
agreements according to their terms.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339
(2011).
Case 3:25-cv-01036-KDB-WCM Document 15 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 4

2
In the Fourth Circuit, a litigant can compel arbitration under the FAA if he can demonstrate:
“(1) the existence of a dispute between the parties, (2) a written agreement that includes an
arbitration provision which purports to cover the dispute, (3) a relationship of the transaction,
which is evidenced by the agreement, to interstate or foreign commerce, and (4) the failure, neglect
or refusal of [a party] to arbitrate the dispute.” Galloway v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 819
F.3d 79, 84 (4th Cir. 2016); see also Chorley Enters., Inc. v. Dickey’s Barbecue Rests., Inc., 807
F.3d 553, 563 (4th Cir. 2015). Agreements to arbitrate are construed according to ordinary rules
of contract interpretation, as augmented by a federal policy requiring that all ambiguities be
resolved in favor of arbitration. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. BSR Tropicana Resort, Inc., 252 F.3d
707, 710 (4th Cir. 2011). Whether a party agreed to arbitrate a particular dispute is a question of
state law governing contract formation. Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc., 303 F.3d 496, 500-01 (4th
Cir. 2002). “[T]he party resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving that the claims at issue
are unsuitable for arbitration.” Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 81 (2000).
If the Court sends a case to arbitration, it must stay the case if either party requests it,
assuming that there are no other reasons to dismiss unrelated to the fact an issue in the case is
subject to arbitration. See Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 475-76 (2024). For example, where all
the claims at issue in a lawsuit are arbitrable, but neither party has requested a stay, the court may
dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Wake Cnty.
Bd. of Educ. v. Dow Roofing Sys., LLC, 792 F. Supp. 2d 897, 900 (E.D.N.C. 2011); see also Choice
Hotels Intern., 252 F.3d at 709-10 (“[D]ismissal is a proper remedy when all of the issues presented
in a lawsuit are arbitrable.”).
Alternatively, where the claims at issue are arbitrable, but neither party has requested a
stay, a court may choose to stay a lawsuit pending the parties’ completion of arbitration. See
Case 3:25-cv-01036-KDB-WCM Document 15 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Silkworm Screen Printers, Inc. v. Abrams, No. 91-1631, 1992 WL 317187, at *6 (4th Cir. Nov. 4,
1992) (“If the district court finds that [plaintiff] agreed to arbitrate ... it may either dismiss
[plaintiff’s] complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or stay its proceedings pending
arbitration and consideration of the award pursuant to Article V of the Convention.”).
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Shawn Winsor is a former United States Automobile Association (“USAA”)
employee. (Doc. No. 1 at 4). In connection with his employment, Winsor and USAA entered into
the “USAA Dispute Resolution Program: Arbitration and Mediation Agreement” (the “Arbitration
Agreement”) on April 26, 2024. (See Doc. No. 7-1, Attachments A-B). The Arbitration Agreement
provides mandatory arbitration as the exclusive means of resolving all employment related
“Disputes.” (Id., Attachment B). The Arbitration Agreement defines “Disputes” broadly to include
all claims arising out of or related to the application for employment, hire, employment, or
termination, including allegations of employment discrimination, harassment, or retaliation of any
kind, including, without limitation, claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) and Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), as well as any other matters concerning
or arising out of the employment relationship. (Id. at Attachment B, ¶¶ 2(F)(4), (5), and (9)). The
definition of “Disputes” under the Agreement also includes claims arising out of an employee’s
employment (1) between Employees or (2) asserted against a Third Party Beneficiary. (Id. at
Attachment B at ¶ 2(F)).
Winsor filed this action on December 30, 2025, asserting claims for purported violations
of the ADA and FMLA against Defendants. (See Doc. No. 1, Section II).
Case 3:25-cv-01036-KDB-WCM Document 15 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 4

4
III. DISCUSSION
Under the well-established law supporting arbitration agreements, the Parties’ dispute must
be resolved in arbitration. See Kendall v. Reg’l Enters., LLC, No. 5:24-CV-00180-KDB-SCR,
2024 WL 4375792, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2024). As described above, there is (and could be) no
dispute that Winsor and USAA entered into an agreement to arbitrate his employment
discrimination claims against the company. Therefore, the Court must compel arbitration of the
Parties’ disputes.
However, in the exercise of its discretion, it will stay rather than dismiss this action, as
alternatively requested by Defendants.
IV. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay (Doc. No. 7) is
GRANTED; and
2. This matter is stayed until further order of the Court pending arbitration of this dispute.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
Signed: March 19, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01036-KDB-WCM Document 15 Filed 03/19/26 Page 4 of 4