KANSAS CITY — A federal judge in Missouri has ordered a former employee and LTN Global Communications Inc. to resolve a retaliation claim through arbitration, while declining to dismiss the case outright and placing it on hold pending that process.
U.S. District Judge Greg Kays issued the order July 6 in the Western District of Missouri.
David Reed alleges that LTN Global fired him in retaliation for complaints he made about overtime pay, a claim brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The company had asked the court to dismiss the case and compel arbitration. Kays granted the request to compel arbitration but denied dismissal, directing that the lawsuit be stayed instead. The parties must submit a status report on the arbitration every 90 days.
The dispute centers on an employment agreement Reed signed in December 2021, shortly after LTN Global offered him a job as an audio specialist at its Liberty location.
The agreement provided that employment-related disputes would be settled through arbitration in Montgomery County, Md., under American Arbitration Association rules. It also stated that each side would pay half of arbitration costs and expenses and pay its own legal fees.
Reed began working for the company on Dec. 6, 2021, and was fired Dec. 5, 2023, according to the order.
He contends the firing was retaliation for complaints that LTN Global was unwilling to pay overtime allegedly owed under federal law.
Reed did not dispute that his retaliation claim fell within the scope of the arbitration provision.
Instead, he argued that the clause could not be enforced because its fee- and cost-sharing terms conflicted with the Fair Labor Standards Act, because it was illusory and lacked mutuality and because it was unconscionable.
Kays rejected those arguments. On the question of arbitration costs and attorney fees, the judge found that any contractual provisions conflicting with statutory rights could be addressed in arbitration and, if unenforceable, severed from the agreement without invalidating the arbitration clause as a whole.
The order noted that a federal court in Maryland had previously found the agreement’s cost-sharing provision unenforceable in a related case but had nevertheless required arbitration after severing that provision.
The judge also concluded that the agreement required arbitration for disputes regardless of which party initiated them.
Although the agreement’s signature block stated that LTN Global executed it solely for a provision concerning confidential information, Kays said that language did not exempt the company from the arbitration requirement.
The court found that the agreement’s language specifying that “any dispute” would be settled by arbitration was clear.
Kays further found that Reed had not shown procedural or substantive unconscionability under Maryland law, which governs the agreement.
The order said Reed signed the agreement over multiple days and acknowledged that he did so voluntarily, had read and understood its terms, and could seek advice from an attorney before signing.
The ruling follows a related Maryland case in which Reed alleged unpaid straight time and overtime compensation under federal and Missouri law.
In that case, the Maryland court rejected substantially similar challenges to the arbitration provision and ordered arbitration.
Kays said Reed’s arguments in the Missouri case were the same in substance and that the earlier decision was persuasive, though not binding.
The order also referred to another nearly identical lawsuit involving a different LTN Global employee in Missouri, where a judge likewise compelled arbitration.
Kays said the pattern of filings was troubling and wrote that Reed’s counsel’s conduct “borders on” violating rules governing legal filings and unreasonable multiplication of court proceedings.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division case number: 4:26-cv-00149
