Ramirez v. Millard Mall Services CA2/5
B305062
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- Ramirez was rehired by Millard Mall Services in July 2016 and completed an all-digital onboarding process via myStaffingPro.
- Defendants produced an Arbitration Policy and an electronic policy-acknowledgement printout showing initials and an electronic signature; the arbitration policy signature line on the policy itself was blank.
- Ramirez conceded she completed the onboarding flow and initialed/ signed the acknowledgement form but testified the Arbitration Policy was never presented to her and that her personnel file and employee handbook contained no arbitration reference.
- HR director Gina Fritz testified about the onboarding design (policies displayed via links; initials on a single acknowledgement form sufficed; nine different onboarding streams existed) and denied records could be altered after completion, though she admitted system changes were later made.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, credited Ramirez’s testimony over parts of Fritz’s, found insufficient proof of mutual assent to arbitrate, and denied the motion to compel arbitration; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of mutual assent to arbitrate | Ramirez: never shown or agreed to an arbitration policy during onboarding | Mall Services: electronic initials and acknowledgement show consent; system audit authenticates consent | Court: substantial evidence supports finding insufficient proof of assent (trial court credited Ramirez) |
| Implied consent by continuing employment | Ramirez: did not waive by staying employed | Millard: continuing to work after 2017 adoption implies consent | Held: argument forfeited on appeal (not raised below) |
| Alleged FAA conflict from trial court phrasing | Ramirez: trial court applied proper state contract formation principles | Millard: court erred by requiring a different/stricter standard ("conscious execution") violating FAA | Held: phrasing not problematic; no FAA error; FAA applies only after an enforceable agreement is shown |
| Authentication/fabrication of documents and personnel-file omission | Ramirez: documents may be fabricated; arbitration policy absent from her personnel file | Millard: produced authenticated copies and audit data; omission an oversight | Held: trial court reasonably discredited HR explanations; substantial evidence supports denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Inc. v. Planning Com., 34 Cal.3d 412 (Cal. 1983) (issues not raised below are forfeited on appeal)
- Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC, 55 Cal.4th 223 (Cal. 2012) (arbitration is based on consent; enforceability depends on contract-formation principles)
- Martinez v. BaronHR, Inc., 51 Cal.App.5th 962 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (existence of mutual assent to arbitrate is a factual question reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 246 Cal.App.4th 1047 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (distinguished — involved authentication and no evidentiary hearing)
- In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230 (Cal. 2001) (deference to trial court factual findings and credibility determinations)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (hearsay objections forfeited if not adjudicated below)