Parsons v. Ukiah Valley Hospital
- Robert Illman
- 3:25-cv-04552
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Parsons v. Ukiah Valley Hospital, Judge Donato denied arbitration because the employment agreement unfairly required Parsons, but not the employer, to arbitrate.
Rebekah Parsons and the defendants, Ukiah Valley Hospital doing business as Adventist Health Ukiah Valley and Lucia Jara-Lopez; the case will not be sent to arbitration under the clause at issue.
What happened
Rebekah Parsons sued Ukiah Valley Hospital, doing business as Adventist Health Ukiah Valley, and her former supervisor, Lucia Jara-Lopez. Parsons says she is hearing impaired, was not reasonably accommodated, and was fired for pretextual reasons. She brought eight claims, including claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The defendants asked the court to require arbitration under an employee handbook that Parsons acknowledged when she was hired. Parsons did not dispute that her claims fell within the arbitration clause, but argued that the clause was unfair under California law.
Judge Donato ruled that the arbitration clause was not enforceable and denied the request to compel arbitration. The court found that the clause was presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and required employees, but not the employer, to arbitrate covered claims. The parties were directed to file a joint case-management statement by March 25, 2026.
The detailed version
- Parsons v. Ukiah Valley Hospital · No. 3:25-cv-04552
- Robert Illman
- Mar. 4, 2026
Background
Rebekah Parsons sued Ukiah Valley Hospital, doing business as Adventist Health Ukiah Valley, and her former supervisor, Lucia Jara-Lopez. The opinion says Parsons is hearing impaired and alleges that Adventist Health failed to reasonably accommodate her and fired her for pretextual reasons. She asserted eight claims against Adventist Health, including claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Motion to Compel Arbitration
Adventist Health and Jara-Lopez asked the court to require arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. They relied on an arbitration clause in the May 2018 employee handbook, which was in effect when Parsons was hired in April 2019. Parsons signed an acknowledgment stating that the handbook contained a binding arbitration agreement and agreeing to comply with it. Parsons did not dispute that her claims were within the clause’s scope. Both sides agreed that California law governed whether the clause was unconscionable, meaning unfairly imposed or unfair in its terms.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that unconscionability has both procedural and substantive elements, and both must be present.
The court found procedural unconscionability because the arbitration agreement was an adhesive contract: a standardized agreement presented to Parsons with no real choice other than accepting or rejecting it. The court also found that Parsons was expected to acknowledge the handbook as part of the onboarding process for a new employee. In the court’s view, the agreement was presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and involved unequal bargaining power, no meaningful negotiation, and no meaningful choice.
The court also found substantive unconscionability because the agreement lacked mutuality. The clause made arbitration mandatory for an employee’s claims arising from employment, while stating that the employer’s claims against an employee only “may” be arbitrated. The court therefore concluded that arbitration was mandatory for the employee but optional for the employer. Adventist Health offered no reasonable business justification for this one-sided arrangement in the agreement or in the record.
The court concluded that the lack of mutuality affected the agreement as a whole and that the clause could not be made enforceable by removing or limiting particular language.
Disposition
Judge James Donato denied the request to compel arbitration, Docket No. 16. The parties were directed to file a joint case-management statement complying with Civil Local Rule 16-9 by March 25, 2026. The court said it would set a case-management conference if needed and otherwise issue a scheduling order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.