Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV02667, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02667    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: 39

Princess Hodges v. Starbucks Corporation, et al.

Case No. 23STCV02667

Motion to Compel Arbitration

            Plaintiff Princess Hodges (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against Starbucks Corporation (“Defendant” or “Starbucks”), among others, asserting the following causes of action:

            1.         Discrimination on the basis of gender under FEHA

            2.         Sexual harassment under FEHA

            3.         Retaliation for complaining about gender discrimination/harassment under FEHA

            4.         Discrimination on the basis of race/ancestry/national origin under FEHA

            5.         Harassment on the basis of race/ancestry/national origin under FEHA

            6.         Retaliation for complaining about race/ancestry/national origin discrimination under FEHA

            7.         Failure to prevent discrimination/harassment/retaliation under FEHA

            8.         Wrongful constructive termination

            9.         Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Defendant now moves to compel arbitration, which Plaintiff opposes.

The moving party on a petition to compel arbitration “bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, while a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.  The trial court sits as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, and any oral testimony the court may receive at its discretion, to reach a final determination.”  (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842, internal quotations and citations omitted.)

There is no dispute that Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement.  Rather, Plaintiff argues that arbitration is barred by the “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021,” which is Title 9, United States Code, section 401 (the “Act”).  The Act became law on March 3, 2022, and Plaintiff alleges that the alleged misconduct occurred on and after July 24, 2022.  The Act prohibits employers from enforcing pre-dispute arbitration agreements in cases involving “a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute.”  (9 U.S.C., § 402(a).)  A “sexual assault dispute” means “a dispute involving a nonconsensual sexual act or sexual conduct, as such terms are defined in section 2246 of title 18 or similar applicable Tribal or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.”  (9 U.S.C., § 401(3).)  A “sexual harassment dispute” means “a dispute relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Trial, or State law.”  (9 U.S.C., § 401(4).) 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The motion to compel arbitration is granted in part and denied in part.

            2.         The Court grants the motion and orders arbitration of the first, fourth, and fifth causes of action. 

            3.         The Court grants the motion and orders arbitration of the third, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action to the extent they are predicated upon non-sexual harassment allegations.

            4.         The Court denies the motion with respect to the second cause of action (sexual harassment).

            5.         The Act covers “a[ny] dispute relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Trial, or State law.”  (9 U.S.C., § 401(4).)  The Court interprets this plain language as covering the third, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action to the extent they are predicated upon allegations of sexual harassment.  Therefore, the Court will permit Plaintiff to pursue these causes of action before the Superior Court at the appropriate time.  This order is without prejudice to Defendant filing a demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent the allegations of sexual harassment are insufficient to support these causes of action. 

            6.         The Court stays all litigation in the Superior Court pending arbitration. 

            7.         The Court orders the parties to meet-and-confer and to schedule their arbitration forthwith. 

            8.         The Court sets an Order to Show Cause why the stay should not be lifted and a trial setting conference for December 8, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.

            9.         The parties shall file a status report on or before November 30, 2023, informing the Court as to the status of the arbitration, including relevant dates of arbitration proceedings.

            10.       Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.