Ever since the enactment of the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) in 2022, the plaintiffs’ bar has made it Job One to insert often implausible claims of sexual harassment into all manner of disparate employment cases (having nothing whatsoever to do with sexual harassment) in an often successful effort to avoid arbitration. (The EFAA permits a person alleging
Cocom v. ABM Aviation, Inc., 2026 WL 1793637 (9th Cir. 2026)
In this putative wage and hour class action, the district court denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration after concluding it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable based on the analysis of Cook v. University of S. Cal., 102 Cal. App. 5th 312 (2024). The Ninth Circuit, relying largely upon Ayala-Ventura
Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc., 19 Cal. 5th 93 (2026)
When applying to work at Empire Nissan, Evangelina Yanez Fuentes was given an employment application packet that included an arbitration agreement that was written in a very small font with text that was “so blurry and broken up that it is nearly unreadable.” When Fuentes went on medical leave for cancer treatment two
The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) has dramatically altered the arbitration landscape for workplace harassment claims—but not without creating deep uncertainty. This newly-published article, co-authored by Proskauer Rose LLP’s Tony Oncidi, examines how the statute’s imprecise drafting has fueled years of court battles over the EFAA’s scope, timing, and application. It also explores competing perspectives: calls from plaintiffs’
Since its enactment, the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act has resulted in plaintiffs’ lawyers tacking on increasingly implausible sexual harassment claims to unrelated garden-variety employment claims in a naked attempt to defeat otherwise enforceable arbitration agreements. Numerous courts across the country have permitted (and thereby encouraged) these poison-pill sexual harassment claims, which have become just the latest weapon plaintiffs are
In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98—a do-or-die statute requiring employers to pay arbitration fees within 30 days or waive the right to arbitrate altogether—is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). While it is not the precise outcome employers may have hoped for, many employers are correctly viewing the decision as
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
It’s not like we didn’t tell you so, cuz we did! Just last year, we predicted that the latest assault on employer arbitration rights had the potential to destroy arbitration everywhere in the country. Is Arbitration Becoming “Just Somebody That We Used to Know”? Well, it’s happening, and the most recent salvo (not surprisingly) comes from the Golden State.
On Monday, a California appellate court
Mar v. Perkins, 102 Cal. App. 5th 201 (2024)
Winston Mar brought an action against SierraConstellation Partners, LLC and its CEO (collectively, the “Sierra defendants”), alleging that the LLC had to purchase his partnership interest within 120 days of written notice of his dissociation. In response, the Sierra defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that Mar was an employee bound by the
Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 5th 222 (2024)
In this decision, the Court of Appeal held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.97, which requires that an employer pay (and the arbitrator receive) all arbitration fees that are owed within 30 days or face an automatic “waiver” of the right to arbitrate. The Court