Skip to main content

Electronic Signature On An Arbitration Agreement Is NOT Necessarily Full Proof

 

Bannister v. Marinidence OPCO, LLC - California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five


Facts:  Maureen Bannister (“Bannister”) worked for Marin Post Acute for many years when Marinidence took over operations of the workplace.  At the time it took over the facility, Marinidence claimed that Bannister had electronically signed an arbitration agreement when completing paperwork for new Marinidence employees.  A year after Marinidence took over operations, Bannister was filed.  Bannister subsequently filed suit and alleged discrimination, retaliation, defamation, and a few other claims.

Marinidence moved to compel arbitration based upon the arbitration agreement.  At the trial court level, Bannister presented evidence that she never saw the arbitration agreement and did not electronically sign it.  The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration.  Marinidence appealed the trial court’s ruling.

Holding:  The Court of Appeal began its analysis of the case with a recognition to the fact that an appeal from a denial of a motion to compel arbitration turns on disputed facts (such as in this case), the trial court’s ruling is reviewed for substantial evidence.  In essence, the Court of Appeal would defer to the determination of credibility and judgment of the trial court.

In this case, Marinidence had presented evidence that Bannister signed the arbitration agreement at the time it was presented to her.  To access this online document, Bannister was required to have her Social Security Number and an employee PIN.  The argument followed that only Bannister would have had access to this information so she was the only one that could have electronically signed the arbitration agreement.  However, at the trial court level, Bannister presented evidence that the Marinidence HR department also had access to this same information and had electronically signed her name without her knowledge or approval.  Consequently, given this conflicting evidence and the burden on Marinidence, the Court was left with little room to do anything other than uphold the denial of the motion to compel arbitration.

Judgment:  The Court of Appeal held that based upon the trial court’s ruling in denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration, the employer had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence (it was more than 50% likely) that the employee had electronically signed the arbitration agreement resulting in the denial of the motion to compel arbitration being upheld.

The Takeaway:  This case is a good example of why many employers have steadfastly insisted on employees actually putting pen to paper on employment policies/agreements rather than allowing for electronic signatures.  In this case, did Bannister actually electronically sign the arbitration agreement?  Maybe, maybe not.  However, based upon the burden on the employer and the fact that there was conflicting evidence that someone else might have electronically signed for her, I think the Court got it right here.

Bear in mind, had the trial court gone the other way, upheld the arbitration agreement, and had Bannister appealed, I think it is just as likely that the Court of Appeal would have upheld the motion to compel arbitration.  (Remember, what happens at the trial court level is often so imperative to how a court of appeals can/will rule.  Sometimes, even if a court of appeals might disagree with the trial court’s ruling, there is often very little leeway to setting aside a trial court’s ruling when it comes down to weighing the credibility of witnesses and testimony, when taking into account the burden of proof and standard of review.  Trial & appellate lawyers know this well.)

Date:  April 30, 2021

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Burns

Opinion:  https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159815.PDF

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more