Liu v. Miniso Depot, Inc., 105 Cal. App. 5^th 791 (2024)

Youngtong “Jade” Liu sued her former employer, Miniso Depot, Inc., for various wage and hour violations of the California Labor Code and the California Code of Regulations; sex discrimination; sexual orientation/gender identity harassment and discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); retaliation in violation of the whistleblower statute (Labor Code § 1102.5); constructive termination in violation of public policy; intentional infliction of emotional distress – and sexual harassment under FEHA. In response to the complaint, Miniso filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the sexual harassment claim failed to state a cause of action because it was predicated on “mere annoying, offensive, and stray remarks.” The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration of any of the claims asserted based on the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA; 9 U.S.C. §§ 401-402). The trial court held that there is no “sufficiency of the pleadings standard” under the EFAA and, in any case, plaintiff had adequately pled a claim for sexual harassment. Further, the existence of a single claim for sexual harassment precluded arbitration “with respect to… the entire case,” including claims that were unrelated to the sexual harassment claim. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. See also Doe v. Second St. Corp., 105 Cal. App. 5^th 552 (2024) (same); cf. Campbell v. Sunshine Behavioral Health, LLC, 105 Cal. App. 5^th 419 (2024) (employer waived right to arbitrate by failing to notify trial court of the existence of the arbitration agreement for more than six months and proceeding as if it were going to mediate the case).