Casey v. Superior Court
108 Cal.App.5th 575
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Kristin Casey, a former real estate agent at D.R. Horton, alleged sexual harassment by coworker Kris Hansen and sued both D.R. Horton and Hansen.
- Casey's employment agreement contained an arbitration clause and a choice-of-law provision selecting California law.
- D.R. Horton moved to compel arbitration; Hansen joined the motion; Casey opposed based on the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA).
- The trial court ordered arbitration, finding California law controlled, not the EFAA.
- Casey petitioned for a writ of mandate, challenging the order to arbitrate her sexual harassment and related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the EFAA apply to Casey's claims? | Yes; the alleged conduct and dispute arose after EFAA's enactment and involves interstate commerce. | No; the agreement chooses California law, not the FAA/EFAA. | Yes; EFAA governs as dispute involves interstate commerce and postdates EFAA. |
| Does the EFAA preempt state law and the arbitration clause? | Yes; federal law bars enforcement of arbitration in sexual harassment cases. | No; choice-of-law lets the parties opt out of federal law in favor of CAA. | Yes; EFAA preempts conflicting state law and overrides the choice-of-law provision. |
| Can EFAA be invoked when claims accrue after its enactment? | Yes; the harassment alleged began after March 3, 2022. | No; arbitration agreement predates the EFAA, so EFAA can't apply retroactively. | Yes; EFAA applies to disputes arising after its effective date. |
| Does the EFAA bar arbitration of only sexual harassment claims or the whole case? | EFAA renders the agreement unenforceable for all claims in the case. | EFAA, if it applies, should bar only the sexual harassment claims, not wage/hour, etc. | EFAA bars arbitration of the entire case if at least one claim is covered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp., 14 Cal.4th 394 (Cal. 1996) (federal and California arbitration statutes both favor enforcement of arbitration agreements)
- Volt Info. Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U., 489 U.S. 468 (U.S. 1989) (FAA allows state law procedures unless they conflict with federal policy)
- Basura v. U.S. Home Corp., 98 Cal.App.4th 1205 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (FAA applies to transactions involving interstate commerce)
- Nguyen v. Applied Medical Resources Corp., 4 Cal.App.5th 232 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (FAA applicability where interstate commerce nexus is shown)
- Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, 32 Cal.4th 910 (Cal. 2004) (conflict preemption when state law obstructs federal law’s purpose)