Authentication Of Electronic Signatures Continues To Trip Up Employers.
The trial court denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration, because the employee Bannister "presented evidence that she never saw the [arbitration] agreement during the onboarding process and did not affix her electronic signature to it," and the Court of Appeal affirmed. Maureen Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC, et al., A159815 (1/5 5/21/21) (Burns, Simons, Rodriguez).
When an appeal from a denial of a motion to arbitrate turns on undisputed facts, the Court of Appeal reviews the trial court's ruling for substantial evidence. If the facts are undisputed, then the review of the trial court's finding can be a question of law. Here, the court agreed that the outcome is the same regardless of the standard applied. The trial court concluded that, given conflicting evidence, the employer failed to prove by "a preponderance of the evidence" the existence of an arbitration agreement. And the Court of Appeal defers to the trial court's determination of the credibility of witnesses and weight of the evidence.
COMMENT: Civil Code section 1633.9, subdivision (a), governs the authentication of electronic signatures. It provides: "(a) An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable."
Comments