Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 23STCV17754, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17754    Hearing Date: November 22, 2023    Dept: 68

Layla Iman Grant vs. CVS Pharmacy, et al., 23STCV17754

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party – Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Opposing Party – Plaintiff Layla Iman Grant

Background and Moving Party’s Position

            Plaintiff Layla Iman Grant (Plaintiff) was employed by Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (Defendant). Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging several causes of action related to discrimination and the termination of her employment.

            On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff entered into an Arbitration Agreement in connection with her employment, in which it was agreed that she would arbitrate any and all claims, disputes or controversies related to her employment. (Bouchard Decl., Ex. 2.) The Arbitration Agreement included an opt out provision. (Id.)

            Based on this Agreement, Defendant has moved to compel arbitration, claiming that Plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable under the Agreement.

Opposing Party’s Position

             Plaintiff argues that the Agreement is unconscionable. Plaintiff argues that the Agreement is unconscionable because she claims that the day she started working she had to sign a second, hard-copy Arbitration Agreement as a condition of her employment. She claims that her training store manager, Brandon Miles, threatened to fire her if she signed the opt-out form.

Reply

            Defendant argues in its reply that the only Arbitration Agreement Plaintiff would have signed would have been the electronic version during her onboarding process. Defendant provides a sworn declaration from Plaintiff’s training store manager, Brandon Miles, that states that he does not assist new employees with new hire paperwork, never gave Plaintiff a hard-copy of the Agreement to sign, and would not know whether employees opted out of the Arbitration Agreement.

Analysis

I.                   Legal Standard

California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-972.) The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) The Court is empowered by CCP § 1281.2 to compel parties to arbitrate disputes pursuant to an agreement to do so.   

Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2 states that: 

“The court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: 

(a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or  

(b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement. 

(c) A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. For purposes of this section, a pending court action or special proceeding includes an action or proceeding initiated by the party refusing to arbitrate after the petition to compel arbitration has been filed, but on or before the date of the hearing on the petition. This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295.” (CCP § 1281.2.) 

The party petitioning to compel arbitration under written arbitration agreement bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court acts as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence. (CCP § 1281.2.)

A.    Existence of an Agreement

Plaintiff does not dispute the existence of the agreement or that she signed the agreement.

B.     Unconscionability

Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable.

First, even if Plaintiff had to sign the Agreement and could not opt out of it, that would not matter. California courts have found that mandatory arbitration policies in employment are not per se procedurally unconscionable. (See Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc., (2016) 62 Cal. 4th 1237, 1245 (“take-it-or-leave-it” employment arbitration agreement not procedurally unconscionable absent “surprise or other sharp practices”); Mercuro v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 167, 175 (high degree of procedural unconscionability not present where employee was neither threatened nor bullied into signing agreement); Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1127 (“the cases uniformly agree that a compulsory pre-dispute arbitration agreement is not rendered unenforceable just because it is required as a condition of employment or offered on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis”).)

Plaintiff claims that she was told by Brandon Miles that she could “kiss her job goodbye” if she signed the opt-out form. (Grant Decl., ¶ 8.) However, she provides no evidence for this claim beyond her own declaration. Defendant has filed a declaration from Miles in which he claims that the onboarding papers are all signed electronically, and he has no involvement in the administration of the Arbitration Agreement or opt-out process. (Miles Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.)

Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that she was threatened or bullied into the Arbitration Agreement.

The Court finds that the Arbitration Agreement is not unconscionable.

ORDER

1.      Defendant CVS’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

2.      This action is stayed pending arbitration.

3.      A Post Arbitration Status Conference shall be held on December 10, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.