The California Court of Appeal dealt another blow to arbitration, just months after we reported the last such decision here.
This time, the Court ruled that the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) overrides state law—even in cases in which the employee has signed an arbitration agreement that explicitly invokes state law favoring arbitration.
Kristin Casey, a former
Hansen v. Musk, 122 F.4th 1162 (9th Cir. 2024)
Karl Hansen sued Tesla, Inc., its CEO (Elon Musk) and another entity alleging he was retaliated against for reporting “misconduct” at Tesla. The district court ordered most of Hansen’s claims to arbitration except his claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which cannot be compelled to arbitration pursuant to a predispute arbitration agreement (18 U.S.C. §
Jenkins v. Dermatology Mgmt., LLC, 107 Cal. App. 5th 633 (2024)
The employer in this case sought to compel to arbitration a putative class action that was filed by former employee Annalycia Jenkins who claimed unfair competition pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The trial court denied the employer’s motion to compel because the arbitration agreement was substantially unconscionable based on a
Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC, 107 Cal. App. 5th 111 (2024)
Edgar Gonzalez worked for Nowhere Santa Monica at its Erewhon market for approximately five months before filing a putative class action for wage-and-hour violations under the California Labor Code. Gonzalez filed suit against 10 Nowhere entities in response to which the 10 entities filed a motion to compel arbitration based upon an
Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 2024 WL 5251619 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)
Christina Leeper entered into an independent contractor agreement with Shipt, Inc. (“Shipt”), a subsidiary of Target Corporation (“Target”), as well as an arbitration agreement that required her to arbitrate any personal/individual claims. She subsequently filed a purported “representative” lawsuit against Shipt and Target, alleging a “representative” PAGA claim – i.e., exclusively seeking penalties incurred
Markel v. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of Am., 124 F.5th 796 (9th Cir. 2024)
Yaakov Markel was employed by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (OU) as a mashgiach to supervise food preparation for kosher compliance. Markel’s relationship with OU and his supervisor, Rabbi Nachum Rabinowitz, “soured” after he did not receive a promotion and a raise that he claims he was
Slone v. El Centro Reg’l Med. Ctr., 106 Cal. App. 5th 1160 (2024)
Johnathan Slone, M.D., sued his former employer (El Centro Regional Medical Center) for violation of Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 for retaliating against him after he reported his concerns about patient care. The case proceeded to a four-day bench trial after which the court found in favor of the Medical
Chavez v. California Collision, LLC, 107 Cal. App. 5th 298 (2024)
Before trial on Samuel Zarate’s wage/hour claims, the employer (California Collision, LLC (“CCL”)) made an offer of settlement pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. After Zarate failed to recover at trial more money from CCL than it had offered before trial, the trial court awarded the company $54,473 in costs pursuant
Howell v. State Dep’t of State Hosps., 107 Cal. App. 5th 143 (2024)
After three years of litigation and a two-week trial, a Napa County jury found Ashley Howell’s former employer (the Department of State Hospitals) liable for disability discrimination and awarded her $36,751 in lost earnings and health insurance benefits but nothing for her alleged emotional distress/pain and suffering. In addition, the trial