The Date Of A Dispute And An Injury May Not Be The Same.
The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act invalidates predispute arbitration agreements in certain circumstances. In Kader v. Southern California Medical Center, Inc., B326830 (2/5 1/29/24) (Moor, Rubin, Kim), the key issue was whether the arbitration agreement executed by the alleged victim, Omar Kader, was a "predispute" arbitration agreement. Mr. Kader alleged a number instances of sexual abuse by a superior, starting before the arbitration agreement with his employer had even been inked. In moving to compel arbitration, defendants argued that the alleged sexual abuse predated the arbitration agreement and the effective date of the Act, and therefore, the arbitration agreement was not "predispute".
Justice Carl H. Moor, who penned the court's opinion, explained that in dictionary usage, a dispute is not the same as an injury. "A dispute arises when one party asserts a right, claim, or demand, and the other side expresses disagreement or takes an adversarial posture." Determining the date of the dispute will depend on the facts.
Under the circumstances here, the date of the actual "dispute" (as opposed to the earlier date of injury) arose late enough so that the arbitration agreement was not "predispute." Furthermore, the dispute arose after the the effective date in May 2022 of the Act.
The trial court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed.
Comments