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

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more