Plaintiffs sued their former employer for sexual discrimination and harassment. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs? claims on the ground that Plaintiffs had each signed a binding arbitration agreement. The trial court denied the motion based on defendant?s failure to prove the existence of any such agreement to arbitrate. The defendant then filed an appeal contending that the trial court erred by denying its motion.
Defendant's employee handbook states, ?[a]s a condition of employment, all employees are required to sign an arbitration agreement? and ?any dispute arising out of employment with the Company ? will be settled by binding arbitration.? Further, the handbook provides, ?[e]mployees will be provided a copy of their signed arbitration agreement.? While the defendant produced copies of its handbook and signed acknowledgements that both plaintiffs received it, the defendant did not produce evidence of signed arbitration agreements. Defendant nevertheless contended the handbook's reference to arbitration and acknowledgments of receipt of the handbook are sufficient to force plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims.
The appellate court noted that a proponent of arbitration has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement as a statutory prerequisite to compelling arbitration. The appellate court also noted that defendant?s documents failed to establish that the plaintiffs consented to arbitration. The appellate court then went on to hold that since the defendant failed to produce the separate arbitration agreement referred to in its handbook, it did not met its burden of proving that a valid arbitration agreement existed with the plaintiffs. The appellate court affirmed the trial court?s ruling denying the defendant?s petition to compel arbitration.

Mitri v. Arnel Mgmt. Co., 157 Cal. App. 4th 1164 (2007).

Back to main