Cristina Melendez and her daughters, Y.A. (age 16) and Y.S. (age 10), filed suit against Ethical Culture Fieldston School, a predominantly white private school in New York. Y.A. had attended the School from kindergarten through ninth grade. She voluntarily withdrew in April 2022 after being accused of cheating by her math teacher. Y.S., her younger sister, had been dismissed in Fall 2022 just days before the new school year began. The family, who identifies as people of color, alleged that both Y.A. and Y.S. were part of a broader pattern of racial discrimination. They brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and related state and local laws.
Melendez had signed enrollment contracts on behalf of both children. These agreements contained arbitration provisions requiring that any disputes arising out of the family’s relationship with the School be resolved in arbitration. The School and several administrators moved to compel arbitration.
Applying the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the Court first determined that the enrollment contracts were covered by the statute due to their provisions regarding tuition, field trips, and internet services, all of which implicated interstate commerce. The central question, then, was whether the arbitration clauses could be enforced against the minor plaintiffs. The School argued that the minors were bound by the contracts their mother had signed. Plaintiffs countered that, under New York law, minors retain the right to disaffirm contracts they have not affirmed upon reaching adulthood. The Court agreed, citing long-standing precedent recognizing a minor’s personal right to void a contract, even one signed by a parent or guardian.
The Court also found that it, rather than an arbitrator, had the authority to decide whether the contracts had been properly disaffirmed. Because the challenge went to contract formation rather than performance, the Court concluded that it had to resolve the issue. It held that Y.A. and Y.S. validly disaffirmed their contracts by filing the lawsuit and rejected the School’s argument that their prior enrollment waived that right, noting that neither child attended the School during the relevant academic year.
The Court distinguished between the minor plaintiffs and their parent. As an adult, Melendez could not disaffirm the contracts and remained bound by the arbitration provisions. The Court rejected her arguments that the arbitration agreements were unconscionable or impermissibly infringed her statutory rights. Her concerns about attorney fee limitations and excessive costs were deemed speculative and insufficient to void the agreements.
The Court further found that class action waivers included in the contracts were enforceable under New York law, even in standardized, “take-it-or-leave-it” service contracts like school enrollment agreements. It explained that the loss of a jury trial or access to class procedures are typical features of arbitration and do not, without more, make an agreement unconscionable, particularly where there is no showing of extreme imbalance or unfairness.
Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the School had waived its right to compel arbitration. Although some time had passed and the parties engaged in settlement discussions, there was no litigation on the merits before the motion to compel arbitration was filed.
The Court denied the motion to compel arbitration as to Y.A. and Y.S., allowing their claims to proceed in court. However, the Court granted the motion as to Melendez, who must pursue her individual claims in arbitration.
Melendez v. Ethical Culture Fieldston School (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2025), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122512.
Note: This case highlights that while arbitration clauses in enrollment contracts are often enforceable against parents, courts may decline to apply them to minor students under state law.