Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
The lawsuit brought against Ring of Honor by former ROH Women of Honor Champion Kelly Klein was closed on 11/16, Maryland court records show.
In February 2021, Klein filed a lawsuit against ROH and its parent company, Sinclair Broadcast Group, seeking $75,000, alleging, among other things, that the company ended their contractual relationship with her at the end of 2018 due to “her complaints regarding the disparate pay for [Women of Honor] female wrestlers, the lack of safety and medical protocols after Plaintiff suffered the concussion in October of 2019, and the sexual harassment at ROH.” Klein’s lawsuit alleged discrimination and harassment, unpaid royalties for Best of DVDs and merchandise featuring Klein, discrimination and harassment, an unsafe working environment, violation of State and Federation equal pay acts, abusive discharge, breach of implied contract and more.
In an 11-page Memorandum Opinion written by United States District Judge Paula Xinis, Xinis agreed with Ring of Honor's arguments that based on the contract Klein signed, arbitration between the two parties should be where the two sides deal with the issues. Xinis' opinion included the following explanation:
"Procedural unconscionability relates to the process by which the contract was made, and it resembles the common law defenses of fraud and duress. An arbitration provision is procedurally unconscionable if one of the parties lacked a meaningful choice during the making of the contract.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland has explained that a contract may be procedurally unconscionable where its material terms were buried in fine print or were written in convoluted language.
Klein avers that, unlike Defendants, she was not a sophisticated dealmaker. Klein highlights that because she earned a modest income as an independent wrestler, softball coach, and pre-school teacher, she could not afford counsel to assist her in negotiations with Ring of Honor.
Klein also avers that she failed to appreciate the financial implications of the arbitration provision’s fee-shifting clause. Moreover, opportunities in the world of professional wrestling were in short supply, which lessened substantially Klein’s bargaining power.
To be sure, Defendants maintained a superior bargaining position compared to Klein. But this alone is not dispositive. When assessing whether an arbitration clause is procedurally unconscionable, the Court must determine whether the agreement was reached in a manner that was egregiously unfair.
The evidence here does not meet this high bar.
To begin, the arbitration provision was clearly and obviously identifiable to a layperson such as Klein, and reads: “[a]ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be settled by arbitration . . . .” See ECF No. 12 at 39 (Exhibit A). The provision next spells out, in equally plain language, the time, place, manner, and conditions under which arbitration shall take place. It is, in short, easy to find, read, and understand.
This Court also cannot conclude that the Agreement was an adhesive contract, presented to Klein on a “take it or leave it” basis.
Indeed, Klein admitted that she negotiated to her advantage other key provisions in the Agreement.
Nor do Defendants’ comparatively greater resources render the provision procedurally unconscionable, as Klein urges. Courts routinely uphold arbitration agreements where the party seeking arbitration arguably has even greater “market power” than Defendants do in this case.
Consequently, even accepting as true each of Klein’s factual averments, the undisputed record reflects that this arbitration provision is not procedurally unconscionable. 2. Substantive Unconscionability As to substantive unconscionability, the Court must focus on the terms of the challenged provision to determine whether the provision is so one-sided or draconian that it must be voided as against public policy.
Klein avers that the arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable because it does not explain the rules governing any future arbitration and it imposes unduly prohibitive arbitration costs.
Klein further suggests that the arbitration provision is internally inconsistent insofar as it requires “strict compliance” with the Agreement while also requiring the arbitrator to construe the Agreement according to Maryland law.
Lastly, according to Klein, the arbitration provision does not clearly state whether the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act governs the arbitration process.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Klein, these supposed defects do not render the arbitration provision substantively unconscionable. First, contrary to Klein’s representation, the arbitration provision does set out the rules with sufficient clarity. The provision makes clear that it covers “all disputes” arising from the Agreement, that arbitration will be governed by Maryland law, that arbitration shall take place in Baltimore County, and it even includes a list of possible arbitrators identified by name.
Similarly, the arbitration provision explains in some detail how arbitration costs will be apportioned, see id. at 40, and accords the arbitrator discretion to award the prevailing party only reasonable fees.
Moreover, as Defendants correctly note, the cost-shifting clause is not a one-sided condition but is mutually applicable regardless of which party prevails. Lastly, to the extent that the terms of the Agreement conflict with one another or are ambiguous, it will be left to the arbitrator, not this Court, to reconcile those conflicts and ambiguities.
The same is true for Klein’s substantive argument that she is not an independent contractor and regarding any ambiguity as to whether the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act applies.
This is so because the parties clearly agreed that questions regarding the scope of the arbitration provision will be decided by the arbitrator. Simply stated, the provision is not substantively unconscionable.
Enforcement of the Arbitration Provision Klein has failed to offer this Court any other ground to void the arbitration provision in the Agreement. But Klein also has not willingly engaged in arbitration.
The Court will, as a result, grant Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration consistent with the terms of the arbitration provision.
Further, because the claims raised here all arise from Klein’s work performed under the Agreement, and thus will be reached in arbitration, the Court sees no value in staying this action. It instead will dismiss the Complaint entirely. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Klein’s motion for leave to conduct limited discovery (ECF No. 13) is DENIED, and Defendants’ renewed motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED.
The Clerk is also DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.
The lawsuit specifically listed several instances where Klein was hurt during matches and reported the issues to the agent of her match but that medical personnel weren’t available to her dating back to an incident in September 2016 where she stated she hit her head and neck on a guard raid, sought treatment at her own expense and was never reimbursed for medical expenses. Klein also alleged that a similar situation took place when she suffered a concussion in April 2018 in New Orleans and when she broke her tooth during a New York City match in June 2018 (the lawsuit notes in that instance, Klein was reimbursed for her dental bills at her request, but that the company never followed up with her on their own) and was left concussed and on a locker room floor rambling for an hour after being hurt during an October 2019 bout in Wales until wrestler Mandy Leon retrieved help for her. In the lawsuit, Klein stated she spoke with several within the company about issues, including “unsafe” performers who were booked and the lack of a concussion protocol for talents. Despite being told that there was a protocol, nothing had been made available to wrestlers, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit stated that at one point, Klein was contracted to the company for $20,000 a year and when she asked if that amount could be raised to $24,000, she was told that she could not receive that raise because all of the women were paid the same amount. Meanwhile, a male ROH talent was earning $189,000.
Klein had previously gone public with her issues during her time with Ring of Honor in a piece published by Newsweek. In November 2019, ROH stated they did not fire Klein but "notified her that we would not be renewing her contract."
Klein has not wrestled since departing Ring of Honor.
ROH is on a hiatus through April 2022.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
