Reported / Citable
Background
Andrew Chin sued DoorDash over leave-related retaliation and termination but did not initially plead a sexual-harassment claim he already knew about. The trial court compelled arbitration of the pleaded claims.
Chin later asserted the harassment theory and invoked the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which allows qualifying claimants to reject predispute arbitration agreements. The trial court then refused to enforce arbitration.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that a plaintiff who knowingly withholds a related harassment claim, permits the court to compel arbitration, and fails timely to invoke the EFAA relinquishes the Act’s protection for both the original and withheld claims.
The majority treated Chin’s litigation choices as inconsistent with later attempting to undo the arbitration order. It remanded with instructions to enforce arbitration and reverse related orders, while a dissent disagreed with the waiver analysis.
Key Takeaways
- EFAA rights should be raised at the first meaningful opportunity when known harassment facts overlap the lawsuit.
- Strategic claim-splitting can forfeit an otherwise available right to remain in court.
- Counsel should investigate potential sexual-harassment allegations before litigating a motion to compel.
- The decision includes a dissent, making preservation of the issue particularly important.
Why It Matters
The ruling makes early case assessment critical in California employment disputes. Employees should disclose all related harassment facts before an arbitration fight, and employers should examine whether the claimant previously accepted or failed to contest arbitration despite knowing the facts later invoked under the EFAA.