Ramirez v. Law Offices of Adam Zolonz CA2/4
B334010
Cal. Ct. App.Sep 4, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Christina Ramirez sued her former employer and its principal alleging sexual harassment plus 13 other employment-related claims (FEHA harassment/discrimination, disability accommodations, retaliation, wage/hour and break violations, breach of contract, wrongful termination).
- Ramirez signed an employment agreement containing a predispute arbitration clause; defendants moved to compel arbitration of all claims except two FEHA claims they characterized as sexual-harassment–based.
- Defendants conceded two causes (hostile work environment and FEHA retaliation) were exempt under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 401–402, but sought to arbitrate the remaining claims.
- Ramirez filed a first amended complaint expanding allegations tying the non-harassment claims to the alleged sexual harassment (claiming harassment prompted adverse employment actions and wage/benefit failures).
- The trial court denied the motion to compel, holding the EFAA renders arbitration unenforceable for the entire “case” that "relates to" a sexual harassment dispute; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EFAA precludes enforcing arbitration for only some claims or for the plaintiff's entire case that "relates to" sexual harassment | Ramirez: EFAA bars arbitration of the entire case because §402(a) makes predispute arbitration unenforceable with respect to a “case” that "relates to" a sexual harassment dispute | Defendants: EFAA should apply only to specific sexual-harassment claims; non-sexual claims must be arbitrated | Held: EFAA applies to the entire case; if the lawsuit "relates to" sexual harassment, arbitration is unenforceable as to all claims (affirmed) |
| Whether Ramirez’s amended allegations are a sham to avoid arbitration or whether legislative history/control should limit EFAA’s scope | Ramirez: FAC legitimately links other claims to harassment, bringing the whole case within EFAA | Defendants: FAC is a sham pleading to evade arbitration; legislative history and policy show EFAA wasn’t meant to bar arbitration of unrelated claims | Held: Court rejected sham/legislative-history arguments; plain statutory text controls and precludes arbitration of the whole case when it relates to sexual harassment |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Second Street Corp., 105 Cal.App.5th 552 (2024) (EFAA applies to entire "case" that "relates to" sexual harassment)
- Liu v. Miniso Depot CA, Inc., 105 Cal.App.5th 791 (2024) ("case" in §402(a) means the entire action, not individual claims)
- Casey v. Superior Court, 108 Cal.App.5th 575 (2025) (follows Liu/Second Street: if action contains a claim within EFAA, arbitration unenforceable as to all claims)
- Mera v. SA Hospitality Group, LLC, 675 F.Supp.3d 442 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (district court view that EFAA applies only to claims that relate to the harassment; distinguished and rejected by California courts)