In the case of Pamela Cook vs. University of Southern California et al., filed in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four under case ID B330640 on April 25, 2024, the plaintiff alleges discrimination and harassment during her employment. The defendants collectively moved to compel arbitration under an agreement signed by Cook as a condition of her employment. This motion was denied by the trial court due to unconscionability permeating the agreement, a decision which is now being appealed by the defendants.
The plaintiff's lawyer is Cummings & Franck, represented by Scott O. Cummings and Lee Franck while the defendants are represented by CDF Labor Law's Wanja S. Guy and John R. Giovannone. The complaint was initially filed on July 1, 2022, alleging that Cook was subjected to disparate treatment based on her race and failed to accommodate health-related time-off requests at USC.
Cook also claims she faced retaliatory harassment after reporting these issues and asserts she was terminated from her employment on August 24, 2021. On October 24, 2022, USC moved to compel all of Cook’s claims to arbitration based on an agreement signed around May 7, 2021.
The plaintiff seeks judgment against her employer for alleged discrimination and harassment during her employment period at USC. She argues that many of her claims were not subject to arbitration and that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable as it was a contract of adhesion made a condition of her employment.