Developments In Equal Pay Litigation - 2022 Update

52 | Developments in Equal Pay Litigation © 2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP that she never saw or read the arbitration agreement prior to being hired, and that if she had, she would not have accepted employment. The court found, however, that the evidence clearly demonstrated that she was repeatedly presented with an opportunity to review the agreement and was informed that her employment was contingent on her acceptance of the agreement. 446 Plaintiff had no explanation for the documentation presented by the defense, which showed that she had acknowledged and accepted the terms of the agreement during the onboarding process, including in her offer letter, which expressly made her employment contingent on that acceptance. 447 The court held that her only defense appeared to be that she did not actually read the arbitration agreement when it was presented to her. But the court held that “it is well established that a party cannot succeed in invalidating an agreement based solely on the claim that she did not read the agreement because, under Florida law, ‘a person is deemed to have read a contract that they have signed.’” 448 Similarly, in Knepper v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. , 449 a non-equity shareholder of the firm alleged that “Ogletree’s female shareholders face discrimination in pay, promotions, and other unequal opportunities in the terms and conditions of their employment.” 450 On March 26, 2019, the District Court for the Central District of California held that plaintiff must arbitrate her claims. 451 First, the court held that an evidentiary hearing was not required to determine whether plaintiff knew the terms of the arbitration agreement and had agreed to be bound by its terms. 452 Because plaintiff had received email notifications informing her about the arbitration provisions and allowing her a chance to opt out, the court held that “the only potential dispute is whether [plaintiff] read the three email notices, not whether she received them.” 453 The court then held that an agreement to arbitrate was formed by virtue of plaintiff’s failure to opt out of the agreement despite several notices informing her of her right to do so: “[s]ince she continued working at [employer] after March 1, 2016 without opting out, she was bound by the terms of the Arbitration Agreement.” 454 Accordingly, except for her representative claim under the Private Attorney General Act—which was stayed pending arbitration—plaintiff was required to pursue her claims in arbitration. Law firms have been the subject of some of the most high-profile equal pay lawsuits over the past few years. Some of those cases have been filed by partners of the firm, who signed partnership agreements with arbitration provisions. Their claims therefore raise a number of legal issues concerning the employment status of partners and the enforceability of arbitration provisions in the context of a legal partnership. This issue was addressed directly by a California court in 2018. In Ramos v. Superior Court , 455 among other things, the court held that the law firm was in a superior bargaining position vis-à- vis its Income Partners, akin to that of an employment relationship, finding that Income Partners can be 446 Id. at *4. 447 Id. 448 Id. at *5 (quoting Sultanem v. Bright House Networks, LLC , No. 8:12-cv-1739-T-24TBM, 2012 WL 4711963, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2012)). 449 Compl., Knepper v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. , No. 3:18-cv-00304 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2018), ECF No. 1. 450 Id. ¶ 3. The complaint alleges both a collective action under the EPA and a state class action under the California Fair Pay Act (among other things). On January 1, 2019, the District Court for the Northern District of California held that an arbitration agreement at least facially applied to plaintiff and therefore transferred her case to the Central District of California, which has jurisdiction to determine the arbitrability of her claims pursuant to the relevant arbitration agreement. Knepper v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. , No. 18-cv-304-WHO, 2019 WL 144585 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2019). 451 Knepper v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. , No. 8:19-cv-60-JVS-ADS, 2019 WL 1449502 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019). 452 Id. at *5. 453 Id. 454 Id. at *6. 455 Ramos v. Super. Ct. , 239 Cal Rptr. 3d 679 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). In that case, an Income Partner at a law firm alleged various causes of action under state law for discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and anti-fair-pay practices. Id. at 685. Under prior California precedent, Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychare Servs., Inc. , 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 745 (Cal. 2000), the California Supreme Court had held that mandatory employment agreements that require employees to waive their rights to bring statutory discrimination claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and related claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy are unlawful. Ramos , 239 Cal Rptr. 3d at 692. Although the law firm argued that Armendariz should not apply because an “Income Partner” should not be considered an “employee,” the court held that it need not address that issue.