The opinion of the court was delivered by: Denise Cote, District Judge:
This Opinion considers defendants' motion to compel arbitration in this case alleging illegal employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. ("NYSHRL"), and other claims. Elwell challenges her demotion and reduction in pay during a high-risk pregnancy. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.*fn1
All facts are as alleged in the complaint unless otherwise noted. Defendant Google, Inc. ("Google") hired plaintiff Christina Elwell ("Elwell") in 2000 as a member of its sales force. Upon joining the company, Elwell signed an "Employment, Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement" (the "Agreement"). The Agreement states:
As a condition of my employment with Google, Inc., its subsidiaries, affiliates, successors or assigns (together "the Company") and in consideration of my employment with the Company and my receipt of the compensation now and hereafter paid to me by Company, I agree to the following:
1. At Will Employment. I understand and acknowledge that my employment with the Company is for an unspecified duration and constitutes "at-will" employment. I acknowledge that this employment relationship may be terminated at any time, with or without good cause or for any or no cause at the option either of the Company or myself, with or without notice. (Emphasis supplied.) The Agreement also contains an arbitration clause (the "Arbitration Clause"), which states:
Arbitration . . . I agree that any dispute or controversy arising out of or relating to any interpretation, construction, performance or breach of this Agreement, shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Santa Clara County, California, in accordance with the rules then in effect of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator may grant injunctions or other relief in such dispute or controversy. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final, conclusive and binding on the parties to the arbitration. Judgment may be entered on the arbitrator's decision in any court having jurisdiction.
The Company and I shall each pay one-half of the costs and expenses of such arbitration, and each of us shall separately pay our counsel fees and expenses. (Emphasis supplied.) The Agreement also contains a choice-of-law clause specifying that it will be "governed by the laws of the State of California."
Defendant Timothy Armstrong ("Armstrong") is Google's Vice President for National Sales and was Armstrong's supervisor for the entire period she worked at the company. In 2003, Elwell has promoted to the position of National Sales Director, in which she managed Google's North American sales force. In early 2004, Armstrong praised Elwell's performance at a meeting of Google's entire sales force.
In February 2004, Elwell became pregnant with quintuplets. She told Armstrong of her pregnancy in late April 2004. She also informed him that she had medical issues related to the pregnancy that would prevent her from traveling for some period of time. Elwell informed Armstrong that she would be able to travel again after she gave birth and discussed how her responsibilities would be handled in the meantime. In May, Elwell lost two of her quintuplets. At the end of that month, Armstrong informed Elwell that her position had been eliminated and that she was to be transferred to what the complaint describes as "a position in Google's operations department that had virtually no relationship to her former sales position, no direct tie to sales revenue, no management responsibilities, and did not in any way use Elwell's 15 years of sales experience." Elwell alleges that Armstrong told colleagues that she was being transferred because she could not travel. Elwell subsequently agreed to a demotion to Director of East Coast Sales, in which she would not have to travel by plane, but Armstrong ultimately filled the Director of East Coast Sales position with someone less qualified.
On June 4, Armstrong accused Elwell of talking to others at Google about her situation. Elwell admitted that she had expressed concern that Google's decisions regarding her employment had been made on the basis of her pregnancy. The following day, Elwell was fired. On June 22, an executive in Google's California headquarters offered to rehire Elwell to the operations position Armstrong had previously discussed with her. The following day, Google's director of human resources informed Elwell's husband that Elwell had been fired improperly; she told Elwell the same thing the following day. Five days later, Elwell lost the third of her quintuplets.
Elwell returned to Google on July 19. She alleges that the position she was given was even more junior than the one Armstrong had originally discussed with her. She also alleges that Armstrong made rude comments, including that he was uncomfortable having Elwell in the office and that he would prefer she work at home.
Elwell's physician ordered her to stay at home beginning July 21 because of her high-risk pregnancy; she notified Google at that time that she required a disability leave of absence. She received a commission check that was lower than usual and was informed that the discrepancy was due in part to the fact that she had received a lower performance rating than in previous quarters. While Elwell was on disability leave, she gave birth to her surviving child.
On August 18, Elwell filed a discrimination complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). On May 18, 2005, the EEOC issued Elwell a Notice of Right to Sue. Elwell filed her complaint in this Court on July 18, 2005, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII against Google and Armstrong; discrimination and retaliation under the NYSHRL against Google and Armstrong; aiding and abetting discrimination and retaliation under the NYSHRL against Armstrong; employment discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL")against Google and Armstrong; aiding and abetting employment discrimination under the NYCHRL against Armstrong; and intentional infliction of ...