Murillo v. Santa Barbara Corp. Fitness CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Aug 26, 2020 No. B299891Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court correctly denied the motion to compel arbitration because the employer failed to prove the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, as the employee did not sign the agreement and was not aware of its existence.

Issues

Whether an employer established the existence of a valid arbitration agreement through its computerized on-boarding process.
Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion as a trier of fact in evaluating conflicting evidence regarding the employee's consent to arbitration.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude, among other things, that the trial court correctly ruled that a valid arbitration agreement did not exist, and that Murillo did not sign an arbitration agreement and did not know one existed.”

“The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence”

“Consent is not present where an employee is “pressured” and did not have an opportunity to know that arbitration was a requirement of employment.”

Filed 8/26/20 Murillo v. Santa Barbara Corp. Fitness CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

DINA MURILLO, 2d Civ. No. B299891 (Super. Ct. No. 18CV04396) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA CORPORATE FITNESS, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Some employers use computerized systems to inform prospective employees of job requirements and to obtain their consent to arbitration agreements. This saves time and avoids unnecessary accumulation of paper documents. Here we decide whether an employer has shown that its computerized system provided its employee with an adequate opportunity to consent to arbitration. Defendants Santa Barbara Corporate Fitness, Inc. (SBCF) and Angel Banos appeal an order denying their motion to compel

arbitration of a lawsuit filed by plaintiff Dina Murillo in which she alleged sexual harassment/wrongful termination. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court correctly ruled that a valid arbitration agreement did not exist, and that Murillo did not sign an arbitration agreement and did not know one existed. We affirm. FACTS On September 6, 2018, Murillo filed a complaint alleging, among other things, causes of action for sexual harassment and wrongful termination. SBCF answered the complaint, denied her allegations, and filed a motion to compel arbitration. SBCF claimed Murillo executed an Employee Agreement to Arbitrate (EAA) when she applied for employment with the company. It claimed that after her employment was terminated, Murillo’s lawsuit fell within the provisions of the EAA. SBCF acquired the company for which Murillo was an employee. SBCF established a new orientation process that all prospective employees of the former company had to complete to become SBCF employees. Instead of the prospective employees reviewing written documents, it created an “automated” system to present various pre-employment related documents for them to review. SBCF claims this “on-boarding” process requires: 1) the multiple prospective employees from the prior business to sit down at an area containing multiple computer laptops; 2) each prospective employee logs into their respective computer; 3) they then scroll down to review various employment-related documents displayed on the computer screen; 4) they “click” on various “tabs” and electronically input their initials or names to

Murillo v. Santa Barbara Corp. Fitness CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

YEGAN, J. PERREN, J.

AI Brief