Compliance Stuff

On February 25, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit  ruled  in  Bruce v. Adams and Reese, LLP  that employers cannot compel arbitration of a case under a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreement when an employee or former employee sues on multiple claims and at least one of them is for sexual assault and/or sexual harassment. Under the  Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) , mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements are invalid with respect to sexual assault or sexual harassment disputes. 0:00 6:57 Quick Hits In  Bruce v. Adams and Reese ,  LLP , a former employee sued a law firm for disability discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. The Sixth Circuit recently concluded that a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreement is voidable when a plaintiff brings multiple claims in a case that includes sexual harassment and/or sexual assault. This is ...

A California jury did it again!  Last Thursday, a Los Angeles jury awarded $27.5 million to a former chief nursing officer of a hospital for the alleged post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychological problems she suffered after being constructively discharged from her job .  The nurse claimed she had been called to assist in an emergency at the hospital’s parking structure after a woman jumped from the eighth floor to the ground and died.  The nurse later learned that a man also had jumped to his death from the same structure six years before. After the incident, the nurse “advocated for stronger safety measures” (including installing a physical barrier), but she was met with “unusually strong resistance from her superiors.”  The nurse took a medical leave of absence from the hospital after suffering severe psychological problems in part related to treating the suicide victim and also from the stress of “nothing being done to make the structure safer. ”...

On June 13, 2025, a California Court of Appeal struck down an arbitration agreement because of unconscionable terms entered by the parties in a separate employment agreement, governing different dispute resolution fora and procedures that were more favorable to the employer. In  Silva v. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. , the Court held that the employment agreement and arbitration agreement (which did not have an integration clause) signed simultaneously as part of the hiring process must be read together , and that unconscionable—or, in other words, unfair—terms can render the arbitration agreement unenforceable. In  Silva , several employees brought class and representative claims against Cross Country Healthcare based on alleged California Labor Code violations. The employer moved to compel arbitration, asserting that the Arbitration Agreement, signed by the employees prior to employment, included a class action waiver clause and required arbitration of all claims between t...

 In Soltero v. Precise Distribution, Inc., Case No. CIVSB2203669 (May 18, 2024), the California Court of Appeal held that a non-signatory employer cannot compel arbitration in reliance on an arbitration agreement between a temporary helper and a staffing provider in the absence of certain conditions. The court rejected the two most common bases for third-party enforcement: (1) equitable estoppel and (2) third-party beneficiary. In reaching its holding, the court ruled that a non-signatory employer cannot compel arbitration where: (1) the plaintiff’s claims against the non-signatory defendant are not based on the terms of the contract containing the arbitration agreement, (2) the staffing provider is not a party to the lawsuit, or (3) the non-signatory is not explicitly identified as a beneficiary in the agreement. Background Facts Real Time, a temporary staffing agency, placed the plaintiff, Nelida Soltero, on assignment with Precise Distribution from October 2017 through January ...