Rodriguez v. D.H. Blattner & Sons CA5

Filed 12/20/24 Rodriguez v. D.H. Blattner & Sons CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

NICHOLAS JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ, F087801 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23CECG04200) v.

D.H. BLATTNER & SONS, LLC, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Jr., Judge. England, Ponticello & St. Clair and Barry W. Ponticello, Max B. Anikstein, and Ian D. Ross for Defendant and Appellant. Lipeles Law Group, APC and Kevin A. Lipeles, Thomas H. Schelly, and Julian B. Bellenghi for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.

Defendant and appellant D.H. Blattner & Sons, LLC (Blattner) appeals from an order denying its petition to compel arbitration against plaintiff and respondent Nicholas Joseph Rodriguez (Rodriguez) based on a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered between Blattner and Rodriguez’s union. Blattner contends the CBA’s arbitration provision waived Rodriguez’s right to bring his causes of action, all premised upon discriminatory conduct in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), in a judicial forum. We affirm. BACKGROUND The Complaint On October 6, 2023, Rodriguez filed a complaint against Blattner. He alleged he began experiencing workplace harassment from his Blattner coworkers and supervisors in 2020, which led to job stress in 2021, and a temporary disability leave in June 2022. Though he requested accommodations and complained to his supervisor, no accommodations were made, and, in August 2022, Blattner fired him because “they had no more use for him at the company if he was unable to work.” Based on these allegations, Rodriguez brought six causes of action alleging discriminatory conduct in violation of FEHA, one cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and one cause of action for unfair business practices. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) The latter causes of action were based on the same conduct underlying Rodriguez’s FEHA claims. Petition to Compel Arbitration On December 1, 2023, Blattner petitioned to compel arbitration. Blattner claimed that, because Blattner entered a project labor agreement (the agreement) with Rodriguez’s union on February 15, 2022, Rodriguez, a contractor performing work on the project governed by the agreement, was compelled to arbitrate his claims. The agreement provided in relevant part: “This Agreement covers all on site construction, alteration, demolition or repair of buildings, structures, and other works