A recent court filing has brought to light a contentious dispute over arbitration agreements between employees and their employer. On September 20, 2024, plaintiffs Chanel Gordon and Matthew Sanchez filed a complaint against Sodexo, Inc. in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two. The case revolves around allegations that Sodexo failed to secure proper consent from its employees for arbitration agreements.
The plaintiffs allege that they were subjected to employment-related violations under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). According to the complaint, the defendants—Sodexo, Inc.; Sodexo North America; SDH Services West, LLC; Sodexo America, LLC; Sodexo Operations, LLC; and Nourish, Inc.—claimed that the plaintiffs had agreed to resolve disputes through binding contractual arbitration. However, the trial court found that the defendants did not meet their burden of proof to show that the plaintiffs had consented to such arbitration agreements.
In January 2023, while awaiting a decision from the California Supreme Court in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the trial court lifted a stay on discovery related to arbitration and set a hearing date for June 2023 on the motion to compel arbitration. Defendants argued that during an onboarding process conducted via an online portal, plaintiffs electronically signed an agreement titled "Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims." The defendants presented evidence suggesting that by clicking an "Add My Signature" button below a hyperlink to this agreement, plaintiffs had effectively consented to arbitration.
However, plaintiffs countered by pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence provided by defendants. They noted that while other onboarding documents showed electronic signatures, the purportedly signed arbitration agreements did not. This discrepancy led them to argue that there was no mutual consent for arbitration. The trial court sided with the plaintiffs and denied the motion to compel arbitration due to lack of sufficient evidence showing mutual consent.
On appeal, defendants shifted their argument slightly but still faced hurdles. They contended that even if explicit electronic signatures were missing from some documents, continued employment itself implied assent to arbitrate disputes—a point they failed to raise in lower courts. This change in strategy was deemed inadmissible on appeal because it was not litigated at trial.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision based on procedural grounds and fairness principles in appellate review. The ruling emphasized that new theories cannot be introduced for consideration at this stage if they were not part of initial arguments at trial.
The plaintiffs are seeking relief including compensation for alleged labor code violations and a judgment affirming their right not to be bound by improperly executed arbitration agreements.
The judges presiding over this case include Miller J., Stewart P.J., and Desautels J., with Case ID A168122.