Hernandez v. San Francisco Conservatory of Music CA1/5

Filed 11/20/23 Hernandez v. San Francisco Conservatory of Music CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

SHASE LELAND HERNANDEZ, A166188 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (City and County of San Francisco SAN FRANCISCO Super. Ct. No. CGC-22-599297) CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC et al., Defendants and Appellants.

In this employment dispute, the San Francisco Conservatory of Music and its president, David Stull (collectively, the Conservatory), appeal from the trial court’s order denying the Conservatory’s petition to compel arbitration of plaintiff Shase Leland Hernandez’s (Plaintiff) claims. We affirm. BACKGROUND In August 2014, the Conservatory made Plaintiff “a temporary offer of employment” from August 25, 2014 to October 31, 2014. The offer letter conditioned the offer upon Plaintiff’s agreement to an “enclosed arbitration agreement.” Plaintiff accepted the employment offer by signing the offer

1

letter, and Plaintiff and the Conservatory executed the arbitration agreement (hereafter, the Arbitration Agreement). Both contracts were executed on August 25, 2014, at the same time and in the same place.1 The Arbitration Agreement provides covered disputes include “those arising out of or relating to Employee’s employment or ending of employment with Conservatory or thereafter . . . .” On November 3, 2014, two days after the expiration of the temporary employment contract, the Conservatory offered Plaintiff a second term of temporary employment through February 28, 2015. The offer letter again provided the offer was contingent upon Plaintiff’s agreement to an “enclosed arbitration agreement.” The enclosed arbitration agreement was substantively identical to the Arbitration Agreement. Plaintiff accepted the second term of temporary employment but did not sign the new arbitration agreement. In February 2015, the Conservatory orally offered Plaintiff a permanent position and Plaintiff accepted. No employment contract of any kind was executed for this position. Plaintiff was terminated in May 2019. In April 2022, Plaintiff sued the Conservatory for wrongful termination and retaliation based on May 2019 events. In August, the Conservatory filed a petition to compel arbitration. After briefing and a hearing, the trial court denied the petition on the ground that the Arbitration Agreement “does not include disputes occurring after the expiration of the underlying employment contract.”