99 Cal.App.5th 214
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Omar Kader was employed by Southern California Medical Center as an executive and signed an arbitration agreement in June 2019, covering employment disputes.
- Kader alleges multiple incidents of sexual harassment and assault by Dr. Mohammad Rasekhi, beginning in 2018 and continuing through early 2022.
- Kader did not disclose the harassment or make any formal complaint at the time the arbitration agreement was signed.
- In March 2022, the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (the Act) took effect, invalidating predispute arbitration agreements for such cases.
- In May 2022, after the effective date of the Act, Kader filed a complaint with the state agency and then sued the defendants for sexual harassment and related claims.
- Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on the agreement; the trial court denied the motion, holding the Act invalidated the predispute arbitration agreement. Defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration agreement is a "predispute" agreement under the Act | Dispute arose after agreement and after Act; Act applies | Alleged conduct began before agreement, so not "predispute" | Dispute arises only upon assertion of a claim; agreement is predispute |
| Whether the Act applies to claims arising before its effective date | Continuing violation; causes of action accrued after Act's effective date | Claims accrued before Act’s effective date; Act not retroactive | Act applies to disputes or claims arising or accruing after its effective date |
| When does a "dispute" arise under the Act | Only when a right, claim, or demand is asserted by the victim | Occurs with the conduct giving rise to claim (injury) | A dispute requires assertion of a claim and adversarial response, not just injury |
| Should the trial court deny compelling arbitration under these facts | Arbitration precluded by the Act | Arbitration agreement should be enforced | Motion to compel arbitration was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 53 Cal.App.4th 1076 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- In re Marriage of Klug, 130 Cal.App.4th 1389 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (distinction between when claims arise vs. accrue)
- Murrey v. Superior Court, 87 Cal.App.5th 1223 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (statutory interpretation of the Act’s applicability)