Hale v. Brinker International, Inc.

Background

Brinker moved to compel arbitration and to strike the class allegations in the operative complaint. The court’s order discusses a plaintiff named Brewer, although the caption identifies Amanda Hale and the order later refers to Hale and Gomez as the remaining named plaintiffs.

Arbitration agreement

The court found that Brinker proved by a preponderance of the evidence—meaning that it was more likely than not—that Brewer signed an arbitration agreement. Brewer said she did not recall signing one. Brinker submitted a copy bearing Brewer’s electronic signature and a declaration from a human-resources official stating that employees accessed onboarding documents through their own usernames and passwords.

Because Brewer’s individual claim had to be arbitrated, the court dismissed Brewer from the lawsuit. The court also said Brewer had not argued that she should remain to pursue non-individual claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, and it questioned whether she had standing—the required personal injury that a federal court can remedy—to pursue those claims.

Class allegations

The court said Hale and Gomez were not required to arbitrate their claims. But because some potential class members had signed the same arbitration agreement that the court described as unconscionable, Hale and Gomez could not fairly and adequately represent those members. The court concluded that Hale and Gomez could potentially remain class representatives for the subset of employees who had not signed that agreement. If a class were certified, it would therefore be limited to that subset.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to compel arbitration. It granted in part the motion to strike the class allegations. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.