Eric Phillips v. Bruker Nano, Inc.

Case Number

23CV04598

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/17/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Eric Phillips: Julian Alwill

For Defendant Bruker Nano, Inc.: Steven L. Friedlander and Carl J. Kaplan

                       

RULING

Defendant Bruker Nano Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action is granted. The action is stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.

Background

This action was commenced on October 18, 2023, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Eric Phillips (“Phillips”) against defendant Bruker Nano, Inc. (“Nano”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a); (3) Violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (m); (4) Violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (n); (5) Violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivisions (h) & (m)(2); (6) Violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200.

As alleged in the complaint:

“Defendant is a manufacturing company that specializes in building scientific instruments, specifically in the semiconductor industry. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a senior level buyer of product and also served in a program manager role.” (Complaint, ¶ 9.) Nano hired Phillips in March 2022 and terminated him on June 23, 2023. (Complaint, ¶ 10.)

Phillips suffers from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), which was diagnosed in early 2022. (Complaint, ¶ 11.) In early December 2022, Phillips requested accommodation for his ADHD. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Nano requested various forms and medical documents to be submitted by Phillips to address the request. (Ibid.) Nano made no effort to accommodate Phillips from when he made the request and when he officially submitted the requested documentation. (Complaint, ¶ 13.)

In March 2023, Phillips submitted all the requested documents including suggestions from Phillips’ doctor regarding appropriate accommodations. (Complaint, ¶ 14.) On May 8, 2023, Nano responded to Phillips’ inquiries, regarding accommodations, with a denial stating that the accommodations would be an undue hardship on the company. (Complaint, ¶ 16.) There was no meeting with Phillips to discuss the denial or to explore other potential options. (Ibid.)

Despite the denial, Phillips continued to work for Nano until being terminated approximately one and one-half months later. (Complaint, ¶¶ 17, 18.) Nano stated that Phillips was being terminated due to issues with work performance despite  Phillips previously receiving positive reviews and a raise for his performance. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) Phillips claims that the termination is retaliation for the accommodation request and discrimination based on his ADHD. (Complaint, ¶ 19.)

Nano moves to compel arbitration and stay the action based on an employment arbitration agreement.

As a condition of Phillips’ employment with Nano, he signed an “Employee Patent, Confidentiality and Arbitration Agreement,” which includes:

“In consideration of my employment with the Company, its promise to arbitrate all employment—related disputes and my receipt of the compensation, pay raises and other benefits paid to me by the Company, at present and in the fixture, I agree that any and all controversies, claims, or disputes with anyone (including the Company and any employee, officer, director, shareholder or benefit plan of the Company in their capacity as such or otherwise) arising out of, relating to, or resulting from my employment with the Company or the termination of my employment with the Company, including any breach of this agreement, shall be subject to binding arbitration. Disputes which I agree to arbitrate, and thereby agree to waive any right to a trial by jury, include any statutory claims under state or federal law, including, but not limited to, claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, the California Fair Employment And Housing Act, the California Labor Code, claims of harassment, discrimination 0r wrongfill termination and any statutory claims. I further understand that this agreement to arbitrate also applies to any disputes that the Company may have with me.” (Meston Dec., ¶ 6 & Exh. 2.)

Phillips “does not contest the validity of such agreement as it relates to Defendant’s ability to compel this lawsuit to be transferred to an arbitration forum.” (Opposition, p. 1, ll. 26-28.) However, Phillips seeks to have this court determine the application of Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.5 in the arbitration proceedings.

Nano argues that the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.5 should be determined in the discretion of the arbitrator.

Analysis

As an initial matter, Phillips cites and attaches minute orders from a trial court in Kern County. This is a violation of California Rules of Court rule 8.115 subdivision (a). A ruling by another trial court is not binding on this court. Counsel will be reminded to comply with the Rules of Court as well as all other statutes and laws.

“California law, like federal law, favors enforcement of valid arbitration agreements.” (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97.)

“Under both federal and California state law, arbitration is a matter of contract between the parties.” (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 787.)

Arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable under both California and Federal Law. “A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.)

“General principles of contract law determine whether the parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate.” (Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 420.) “The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

As stated above, Phillips concedes the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement. He solely requests that the court determine that Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.5 is applicable and that Nano should bear the cost of a certified shorthand reporter at arbitration.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.5 provides:

“(a)(1) A party to an arbitration has the right to have a certified shorthand reporter transcribe any deposition, proceeding, or hearing. The transcript shall be the official record of the deposition, proceeding, or hearing.

“(2) A party requesting a certified shorthand reporter shall make his or her request in or at either of the following:

“(A) A demand for arbitration, or a response, answer, or counterclaim to a demand for arbitration.

“(B) A pre-hearing scheduling conference at which a deposition, proceeding, or hearing is being calendared.

“(b) If an arbitration agreement does not provide for a certified shorthand reporter, the party requesting the transcript shall incur the expense of the certified shorthand reporter. However, in a consumer arbitration, a certified shorthand reporter shall be provided upon request of an indigent consumer, as defined in Section 1284.3, at the expense of the nonconsumer party.

“(c) If an arbitrator refuses to allow a party to have a certified shorthand reporter transcribe any deposition, proceeding, or hearing pursuant to this section, the party may petition the court for an order to compel the arbitrator to grant the party’s request. The petition may include a request for an order to stay any deposition, proceeding, or hearing related to the arbitration pending the court's determination of the petition.

“(d) This section does not add grounds for vacating an arbitration award pursuant to subdivision “(a) of Section 1286.2 or for correcting an arbitration award pursuant to Section 1286.6.”

“Normally, the court decides the scope and validity of an arbitration agreement, including whether it is unconscionable. [Citation.] When the parties “clearly and unmistakably” delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the arbitrator, not the court, decides such issues as the scope of the arbitration agreement. [Citations.]” (Chin v. Advanced Fresh Concepts Franchise Corp. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 704, 709.)

After considering the arguments and legal authority presented by the parties, the court determines that it is the arbitrator, in the first instance, that should determine  the application of Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.5. As such, Nano’s motion to compel arbitration and stay action will be granted. The court will decline to issue any ruling regarding the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.5 at this time.