A recent court decision has brought to light the complexities surrounding arbitration agreements in employee handbooks. The case, filed by Selena Towell in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on April 20, 2022, against Move, Inc., and its affiliates, underscores the importance of clear communication between employers and employees regarding such agreements.
Selena Towell's complaint was initially filed in Los Angeles County on April 20, 2022, targeting Move, Inc., among others. Towell alleged that she was not adequately informed about an arbitration agreement included in a revised employee handbook. She argued that her continued employment did not imply consent to this agreement because she never received proper notification or had access to the necessary documents due to medical leave.
Towell began her employment with Move as a sales consultant associate in January 2021. At that time, she acknowledged reading an employee handbook that did not contain any arbitration agreement. However, on May 20, 2021, Move sent an email to all employees announcing updates to the handbook and requesting acknowledgment of receipt by May 27, 2021. This email did not mention any new arbitration policy but included a hyperlink to the updated handbook available on the company's intranet.
The situation became complicated when Towell took medical leave starting May 26, 2021—one day before the deadline for acknowledging the revised handbook. During her leave, which lasted until December 14, 2021, Towell lost access to her company email and training platform accounts. Consequently, she was unable to review or acknowledge the updated handbook containing the arbitration agreement.
In response to Towell's lawsuit alleging disability discrimination and wage and hour violations on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, Move filed motions to compel arbitration based on the revised handbook's terms. They argued that Towell had impliedly consented to arbitrate by continuing her employment after receiving notice of the updated policies.
Towell countered these motions by asserting that no valid arbitration agreement existed between her and Move because she had never seen or acknowledged the email or handbook revisions due to her medical leave. She further claimed that Move's actions constituted fraud in execution and that the arbitration policy was unconscionable.
Judges Carolyn B. Kuhl and Gail Killefer presided over these consolidated appeals and ultimately denied Move's motions to compel arbitration. They found substantial evidence supporting Towell's claims that she had no notice of the arbitration policy before going on medical leave. The courts noted that merely remaining employed without explicit notification does not constitute consent to an arbitration agreement.
Towell sought relief from both discrimination-related claims and wage violations through this litigation. She aimed for a judgment declaring no binding arbitration agreement existed between her and Move while seeking appropriate remedies for her grievances.
Representing Selena Towell were attorneys Shadie L. Berenji and Kristopher N. Tayyeb from Berenji Law Firm. On behalf of Move were Adam Levin and Corey G. Singer from Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP.
This case is identified under Case ID: B324868 c/w B324885.