Cornet v. Twitter, Inc.

Background

Emmanuel Cornet, Justine De Caires, Grae Kindel, Alexis Camacho, and Jessica Pan sued Twitter, Inc. on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of other Twitter employees. They alleged that recent layoffs violated federal and state laws. Twitter asked the court to compel the five named plaintiffs’ individual claims to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and their employment agreements.

The plaintiffs signed arbitration agreements as part of employment contracts dated from September 2017 through April 2021. The agreements stated that arbitration was not a mandatory condition of employment and gave employees an opportunity to opt out. The opinion states that these plaintiffs did not opt out. The agreements covered disputes arising out of or related to employment, including termination, and included class-action waivers requiring disputes to be brought in arbitration on an individual basis.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that, under the Federal Arbitration Act, it generally determines whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether it covers the dispute. The agreements here also contained delegation clauses—provisions assigning questions about the enforceability and validity of the arbitration agreement to an arbitrator.

The plaintiffs’ main objection was that the agreements were unconscionable, meaning allegedly so unfair or oppressive that they should not be enforced. They did not raise contract-formation challenges. The court held that the plaintiffs had not specifically challenged the delegation clauses themselves. It found that the clauses clearly stated that disputes about the arbitration agreement’s enforceability and validity would be resolved by an arbitrator through final and binding arbitration. For some agreements, the court also noted that the agreements incorporated rules of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services that delegated threshold arbitration questions to the arbitrator.

The court separately retained authority over the class-action waiver. The plaintiffs challenged the part that would prevent representative actions under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, but the court noted that the operative complaint did not assert a Private Attorneys General Act claim. It therefore did not address a possible claim that was not presented in the current record.

Disposition

The court ordered the claims of Cornet, De Caires, Kindel, Camacho, and Pan to arbitration on an individual basis. It stated that the effect of the order on the proposed class would be considered later if warranted by developments in the case. The opinion does not resolve the underlying allegations about Twitter’s layoffs.