Daysia Mo'Nay Lewis v. REM California, LLC

The arbitration agreement (Agreement) provides in part as follows: "The Company and the undersigned Employee hereby agree that any dispute ... arising out of or in any way related to Employee's application for employment and employment with the Company shall be resolved by mandatory, binding arbitration before a retired judge or other arbitrator selected by mutual agreement of the Company and the Employee." (Eastman Decl., Ex. A. at p. 1.)

DCOR submits evidence that the Agreement was signed by Plaintiff and a representative of DCOR. (Eastman Decl., P.P. 2-6, Ex. A at p. 3.)

Moreover, the Agreement provides as follows pertaining to waiver of representative actions: "Except as otherwise required by applicable law, the parties agree that ... all such claims shall be conducted on an individual basis, and not as a joint action, class action ... or any other representative and/or collective action or claim...." (Eastman Decl., Ex. A at p. 2.)

Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the California Arbitration Act (CAA), class action waivers are not categorically invalid. (See Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 947, 956 [FAA]; Garrido v. Air Liquide Industrial U.S. LP (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 833, 845 [CAA].)

Plaintiff presents no argument that this provision is invalid or unconscionable.

DCOR has carried its burden to demonstrate mutual assent to arbitrate the individual claims in this action pursuant to the parties' arbitration Agreement. (See Eastman Decl., P.P. 2-6, Ex. A; Civ. Code, Sec.Sec. 1550, 1565; Monster, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 789.)

In addition, the Court construes the notice of non-opposition by Plaintiff as a concession that the motion has merit and the relief sought by DCOR should be granted. (Non-Opp., p. 1, ll. 23-25.)

For all the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant DCOR's motion, order the individual claims in this action to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the arbitration Agreement, and stay this action in Court pending the completion of the arbitration proceedings. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 1281.2, 1281.4; see also 9 U.S.C. Sec. 3.)

Tentative Ruling: Daysia Mo'Nay Lewis v. REM California, LLC Tentative Ruling: Daysia Mo'Nay Lewis v. REM California, LLC Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 08/12/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Daysia Mo'Nay Lewis: Gregory P. Wong, Lyfe Law, LLP For Defendant REM California, LLC: Andrew M. McNaught, Parnian Vafaeenia, Idrian Mollaneda, Seyfarth Smith LLP Emails: amcnaught@seyfarth.com; pvafaeenia@seyfarth.com; imollaneda@seyfarth.com; gregw@lyfe.com RULING 1.Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted.

2. This matter is stayed pending the completion of arbitration.

3. The Court set a Status Report Conference for 8:30 am on April 28, 2027, with status reports due one week in advance.

4. The Court anticipates the binding arbitration will have been completed and a dismissal of this case will have been filed by that date; if not the Court will inquire why not?

5. The jury trial date of 5/12/27, the MSC date of 4/30/27, and the final CMC date of 1/13/27 are all vacated.

Background

This action commenced on January 8, 2026, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff Daysia Mo'Nay Lewis ("Plaintiff") against Defendant REM California, LLC ("REM" or "Defendant") for: (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Failure to Accommodate Disability; (3) Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process; and (4) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

As alleged in the complaint: Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a direct support professional from October 16, 2023, through January 21, 2025, when her employment was involuntarily terminated. (Compl., P. 13.)

On December 27, 2025, Plaintiff injured her back while lifting a patient from her wheelchair to the toilet, which resulted in a physical disability related to her nervous and musculoskeletal systems that limited her in the life activities of lifting and working. (Compl., P. 14.)

Plaintiff felt continuous back pain and called Sedgwick to inform them of the pain she was in and was told to ice her back and take pain medication. (Compl., P. 14.) [Note: Plaintiff does not identify who or what Sedgwick is in relation to this action.]

Plaintiff was still feeling intense back pain and was sent to see a medical provider on January 16, 2025, and took off three days of work from January 13, 2025, to January 17, 2025. (Ibid.)

After seeing a medical provider, Plaintiff was given restrictions of no lifting, carrying, pushing, or pulling over 10 pounds, no prolonged stooping or bending, that she must be able to alternate sitting and standing, no awkward positions, and no use of a Hoyer Lift. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff sent her request for disability accommodation to her supervisors on the same day she received the restrictions, and Plaintiff's supervisor asked Plaintiff what day she would like to return to work, which was puzzling to Plaintiff because the doctor's note stated that Plaintiff was immediately able to return to work with the requested restrictions. (Compl., P. 15.)

Plaintiff's supervisors told Plaintiff to come into the office on January 21, 2025, and, when she did so, she was immediately fired. (Ibid.)

On May 15, 2026, REM filed the present motion to compel arbitration based on an agreement to do so signed by both parties.

On 8/6/26 Defendant filed a Notice of Plaintiff's Non-oppositon to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Analysis

"[T]he Legislature has expressed a 'strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution.' [Citations.] Consequently, Courts will 'indulge every intendment to give effect to such proceedings.' [Citations.]" (Mancharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9.)

"California law, like federal law, favors enforcement of valid arbitration agreements." (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97.)

"Under both federal and California state law, arbitration is a matter of contract between the parties." (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 787.)

Arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable under both California and Federal Law. "A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281.)

"The burden of persuasion is always on the moving party to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement with the opposing party by a preponderance of the evidence." (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164.)

Existence of the Arbitration Agreement

"General principles of contract law determine whether the parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate." (Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 420.)

"The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability." (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

The arbitration agreement provides, in pertinent part: "This Agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq. and evidences a transaction involving commerce. Except as it otherwise provides, this Agreement applies to any dispute arising out of or related to Employee's (sometimes also referred to as 'you' or 'your') application or selection for employment,