18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 211 Harper, et al. v. Charter Communications, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197768 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of salespersons, filed a class action alleging that Defendant misclassified salespersons as exempt employees and thereby violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement signed when they were applied for employment using Defendant’s online job application. The Court granted the motion. Defendant’s arbitration agreement required arbitration of claims via "Solution Channel," Defendant’s employment-based legal dispute resolution program, which provided for arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association (the "Solution Channel Agreement"). Id . at *4. Plaintiffs conceded that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties. Plaintiffs, however, argued that the claims of Plaintiffs Vasquez and Abascal should not be subject to arbitration because they were hired following Plaintiff Harper’s already filed lawsuit, and thus they were excluded under the terms of the arbitration agreement. The Court determined that under the provisions, it was clear that the agreement could be read to prevent arbitration of Vazquez and Abascal’s claims by virtue of Harper’s previously filed claim. The Court noted that the agreement was for all claims between the parties, and to allow signatories to avoid arbitration of otherwise-covered claims by joining suits filed by individuals not party to the contract would frustrate the intention of the agreement. Id . at *15. Thus, the Court concluded that taken together with the Federal Arbitration Act’s mandate that any doubts as to an arbitration agreement’s applicability be resolved in favor of arbitration, the Solution Channel Agreement applied to compel arbitration of Vazquez and Abascal’s claims, as well as Plaintiff Turner’s claims. The Court also ruled that the agreement pertained to Harper’s claims, even if there were some claims that may have been subject to a previous arbitration agreement that was upended by the Solution Channel Agreement. Finally, Plaintiffs argued that the Solution Channel Agreement was unconscionable because it was required as a condition of employment. The Court disagreed. It pointed out that the agreement at issue in this litigation was the same as the one upon which it ruled in the separate litigation was not unconscionable, and Plaintiffs did not allege that it changed. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Hayford, et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151142 (D. Ariz. Aug. 11, 2021). Plaintiff, a call center employee, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement that she signed at the commencement of her employment. The Court granted the motion. As part of Defendant’s new hire orientation, employees were required to review and acknowledge receipt and understanding of its arbitration policy using an online training portal using their individual user names and passwords. Plaintiff acknowledged review of the policy on April 18, 2017. The policy at issue stated that “the Company and Associate agree to submit to binding arbitration any dispute, claim, or controversy that may arise between Associate and the Company arising out of or in connection with the Company’s business, the Associate’s employment with the Company, or the termination of Associate’s employment with the Company.” Id . at *4. Defendant argued that Plaintiff was required to arbitrate her employment-related claims against it on an individual basis because she entered into a valid agreement with Defendant to arbitrate all employment-related claims; the claims in her complaint fell within the scope of that agreement; and that the question of the individualized arbitrability of the claim was reserved for the Court where the Arbitration Policy was silent on the issue. Id . at *5. Plaintiff asserted that she never agreed to arbitration of her claims, or in the alternative, that the arbitration policy could not be enforced because it was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. First, the Court found that an agreement to arbitration existed, as the evidence demonstrated that the written policy was electronically provided to Plaintiff at the beginning of her employment, and that she accepted it by acknowledging it electronically, and continuing employment with Defendant for over two years. The Court opined that Plaintiff’s denial of having agreed to or received the arbitration policy or any arbitration agreement between her and Defendant were insufficient to place the material fact of the existence of or the parties’ entry into the arbitration policy in dispute. Plaintiff argued that the policy was procedurally unconscionable because she did not have the opportunity to negotiate its terms; it was presented to her on a "take it or leave it" basis; her employment was conditioned on it; and she was never provided with a copy of the rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") or informed that she should review them. Id . at *11. The Court ruled that the evidence did not support a conclusion that Plaintiff was unfairly surprised by the policy. The Court also found nothing in the agreement that pointed to substantive unconscionability. The Court thus concluded that an enforceable arbitration agreement existed between the parties and that Plaintiff’s claims were within the scope of the agreement.