Joyce v. Volt Management Corp. CA4/1 ( 2016 )

Filed 5/17/16 Joyce v. Volt Management Corp. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JUAN CARLO JOYCE, D067867
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2014-00036844-
CU-WT-CTL)
VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Katherine A. Bacal, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, Aaron A. Buckley, Corrie J. Klekowski
and Michael J. Etchepare for Defendant and Appellant Volt Management Corp.
Seyfarth Shaw, Colleen M. Regan, Kiran A. Seldon and Jennifer L. Gentin for
Defendants and Appellants Solar Turbines Incorporated and Greg Robertson.
The Ahrens Law Office, Kimberly A. Ahrens; Law Office of Johanna S.
Schiavoni and Johanna S. Schiavoni for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Juan Carlo Joyce filed a complaint against Volt Management Corp. (Volt), Solar
Turbines Incorporated (Solar), and Greg Robertson (collectively "appellants"), alleging
workplace harassment based on sexual orientation, among other causes of action.
Appellants filed a petition to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the petition on the
ground that appellants had not established that Joyce manifested his assent to be bound
by a valid arbitration agreement.
On appeal, appellants claim that the trial court erred in denying the petition,
providing three arguments in support of this claim. First, appellants contend that Joyce
assented to an arbitration agreement by signing an employment agreement with Volt that
contained an arbitration provision. We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding
that appellants failed to establish that Joyce signed the employment agreement.
Appellants also claim that Joyce assented to an arbitration agreement by signing an
acknowledgement attesting to his receipt and review of an employee handbook that
contained an arbitration agreement. We conclude that the trial court properly determined
that the arbitration agreement in the employee handbook was not enforceable because it
was expressly superseded by a separate employee orientation guide. Finally, citing Craig
v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 420 (Craig), appellants claim that
Joyce implicitly assented to an arbitration agreement by continuing to work at Volt after
becoming aware of the existence of Volt's arbitration agreement. We reject this
argument, based on two cases that have concluded that Craig is "inapposite" where, as in
2
this case, the agreement that contains the arbitration provision requires that the employee
sign the agreement in order for it to be effective. (Mitri v. Arnel Management Co. (2007)
157 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1172 (Mitri); see Gorlach v. Sports Club Co. (2012) 209
Cal.App.4th 1497, 1509 (Gorlach).) Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order
denying appellants' petition to compel arbitration.1
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Joyce's complaint
In October 2014, Joyce filed a complaint that contained the following allegations.
Joyce is a gay man and is in a same sex marriage. In June 2012, Volt hired him to work
as a temporary employee assigned to work for Solar.2 Joyce married his longtime
partner on July 10, 2013. Shortly thereafter, Joyce revealed his sexual orientation and
same-sex marital status to Robertson, his direct supervisor.
In the wake of these revelations, Joyce was "subjected to consistent, unwelcome,
harassing, inappropriate and derogatory comments regarding [his] sexual
orientation . . . ." Robertson engaged in several discriminatory acts against Joyce based
on his sexual orientation including: denying him employment opportunities, issuing
1 In light of our affirmance of the trial court's order on these grounds, we need not
consider the numerous alternative arguments for affirmance that Joyce offers in his brief.
2 Although Joyce's complaint alleged that "defendants" hired him, Joyce stated in a
declaration that he worked for Volt beginning in 2012, that Volt is a "temporary staffing
and recruiting agency that hires employees on an assignment basis," and that he had
worked for Solar on assignment from Volt.
3
unwarranted negative performance appraisals, and referring to Joyce in a "hostile,
insulting, and aggressive manner . . . ."
As a result of this conduct, Joyce sought out other employment opportunities that
did not require Robertson's oversight. In early February 2014, Joyce accepted an offer
with Solar to work as an engineer under a different manager. Solar instructed Joyce to
resign from his position with Volt. Joyce submitted his resignation to Volt on or about
February 10, but continued working until February 26.
On February 25, a fellow employee reported to Joyce that her manager had made
sexually harassing comments to her. Joyce reported the manager's conduct to a regional
manager because he reasonably believed that such conduct was illegal and violated
company policies. On February 28, Solar terminated Joyce's employment.
Joyce 's complaint contained seven causes of action: harassment based on sexual
orientation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (against all defendants);
discrimination based on sexual orientation, and failure to prevent harassment,
discrimination and/or retaliation (against Volt and Solar); and retaliation, wrongful
termination, and negligent training and supervision (against Solar).
B. Appellants' petition to compel arbitration
Appellants filed a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1281.2 (Section 1281.2).3 In a supporting brief, appellants stated that
Volt is a contingent staffing provider that has a contract with Solar to provide temporary
3 Volt filed the petition, and Solar and Robertson joined in the petition.
4
staffing. Appellants contended that on May 21, 2012, Joyce signed a one-page
employment agreement (Employment Agreement) with Volt that contained an arbitration
provision (Employment Agreement Arbitration Provision) that provides as follows:
"AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE DISPUTES: Any disputes
arising out of or relating to the actions of Volt or any assignments or
termination of any assignment, and/or disputes arising out of or
related to the actions of Volt's Clients (or Clients' employees), shall
be settled by final and binding arbitration, pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act, in accordance with the rules of the American
Arbitration Association (www.adr.org), in the state where you were
employed. The arbitrator may award attorney fees and/or costs to
the prevailing party, in accordance with the law. Judgment upon the
arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction.
Volt and you hereby waive our respective rights to trial by jury and
any cause of action or defense that we may have against each other
or against any Client of Volt. This agreement to arbitrate disputes
does not prevent you from filing a charge or claim with any
governmental administrative agency as permitted by applicable law."
(Boldface omitted.)
Appellants also stated that, at the time he was hired, Joyce signed an
acknowledgment verifying his receipt of an employee handbook (Employee Handbook)
containing an arbitration provision (Handbook Arbitration Provision) that is substantially
similar to the Employment Agreement Arbitration Provision.
Appellants contended that Joyce and Volt "entered into a valid, binding, and
mutual arbitration provision contained in both the one-page Employment Agreement and
the Employee Handbook." Appellants further argued that an employee may manifest his
assent to an arbitration agreement by way of "continued employment." Appellants
argued:
"Joyce signed the Employment Agreement confirming that he read
and agreed to be bound by the arbitration provision. [Citations.]
5
Joyce then continued his employment until his resignation in
February 2014. [Citation.] These facts satisfy the offer, acceptance,
and consideration requirements for contract formation." (Fn.
omitted.)
Appellants argued that Solar and Robertson could enforce the arbitration provision
as third-party beneficiaries of the Employment Agreement Arbitration Provision and the
Handbook Arbitration Provision.
In support of the petition, Volt lodged several exhibits, including a copy of the
Employment Agreement (Def. Exhibit 1), a copy of the Employee Handbook, and a copy
of Joyce's signed Employee Handbook acknowledgement form.
Volt also lodged a declaration from its director of human resources, Kendra
Bellman. Bellman stated that she had reviewed Joyce's personnel file, which was
maintained in the regular scope of Volt's business. Bellman further stated:
"Volt hired Joyce to work as a Controls Manufacturing Engineer on
assignment to Solar in June 2012. It is Volt's policy, practice and
procedure to have all employees complete and execute an
Employment Agreement upon hiring. The Employment Agreement
contains an arbitration provision in paragraph 8. . . .[4]
"5. On May 21, 2012, Joyce . . . signed an acknowledgment
verifying his receipt of the Volt Employee Handbook."
4 We omit that portion of Bellman's declaration in which she stated that "Joyce
signed the one-page Employment Agreement containing the arbitration provision on May
21, 2012." The trial court sustained Joyce's objection to that portion of the declaration on
the ground that Bellman lacked personal knowledge of this fact, and Volt raises no claim
as to this evidentiary ruling on appeal.
6
C. Joyce's ex parte application
Prior to filing an opposition to the petition, Joyce filed an ex parte application
seeking an order permitting Joyce to depose Casey Wood, the individual who signed the
Employment Agreement on behalf of Volt, and permitting Joyce to depose Volt's person
most qualified concerning the existence of any arbitration agreements between Joyce and
Volt. In a brief in support of the application, Joyce argued that he "dispute[d] the
existence of any arbitration agreement covering his claims . . . ."
Volt filed an opposition to Joyce's application. Volt argued that its filing of a
petition to compel arbitration mandated a stay of all proceedings in the litigation pending
a decision on the petition. In addition, Volt argued that Joyce had not demonstrated good
cause justifying the taking of the depositions. In support of this contention, Volt argued
Joyce "does not state that he intends to make any argument that he did not actually sign
the agreement."
After a hearing, the trial court denied Joyce's application without prejudice.
D. Joyce's opposition
Joyce filed an opposition to the petition to compel in which he argued that
appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing the existence of a binding and
enforceable arbitration agreement. Joyce stated that he disputed signing the Employment
7
Agreement, and contended that he had "never seen the Employment Agreement," until
the commencement of this litigation.5
In support of his contention that he had not signed the Employment Agreement,
Joyce argued that he requested his personnel file in March 2014 and that the Employment
Agreement was not provided to him at that time. Joyce also maintained that, although his
counsel had requested his personnel file in June 2014, Volt did not produce the
Employment Agreement until November 2014, after the filing of this lawsuit. In
addition, Joyce noted that Volt failed to submit an affidavit from Wood and had refused
to produce Wood for a deposition, despite the fact that the Employment Agreement bore
her signature. Joyce also argued that Wood had not been assigned to be Joyce's
representative for any portion of his employment with Volt and Joyce did not recall
having signed any documents in her presence. Finally, Joyce maintained that there were
a number of "inconsistencies and irregularities," with respect to the Employment
Agreement that appellants offered in support of their petition, including that information
on the form pertaining to his job title and supervisor was incorrect.
With respect to the Employee Handbook, Joyce acknowledged that he had signed
an acknowledgement form attesting to his receipt of the handbook, but contended that he
did "not receive the actual handbook referenced in the Acknowledgment." Joyce argued
further that, even assuming he had received the Employee Handbook, this handbook had
been superseded by an orientation guide, the Volt On-Site at Solar Turbines New
5 Joyce also stated that he had not signed a separate arbitration agreement contained
in Volt's employment application agreement (Employment Application).
8
Employee Orientation Guide (Orientation Guide), which stated, "I understand that this
[Orientation Guide] supersedes any prior handbooks or policy manuals issued by
[Volt] . . . ." (Italics omitted.) Thus, Joyce argued that the Handbook Arbitration
Provision was not an enforceable arbitration agreement.
Joyce lodged his own declaration as well as a declaration from his counsel.
Among other statements supporting the claims made in his opposition, Joyce stated the
following in his declaration:
"I received, but do not recall signing, Volt's arbitration agreement
contained in the application documents I initially submitted to
Volt. . . .
"8. After the instant motion was filed by [appellants], I reviewed
'Defendant's Exhibit 1 - Employment Agreement.' I had never seen
Defendant's Exhibit 1 - Employment Agreement until after I filed the
instant lawsuit."
With respect to the Employee Handbook, Joyce admitting having signed an
acknowledgment form attesting to his receipt of the handbook, but contended that he had
not actually received the handbook. Joyce also stated the following:
"Even if I had received the May 21, 2012 [Employee Handbook],
Volt and Solar subsequently issued an entirely different [h]andbook
to me on June 4, 2012 [(Orientation Guide)] that expressly
supersedes any prior handbook."
Joyce also lodged several documents in opposition to the petition, including the
unsigned Employment Application that contained an arbitration agreement (Employment
Application Arbitration Agreement) and the Orientation Guide referred to in his
declaration and opposition.
9
E. Appellants' replies
Volt filed a reply in which it argued that Joyce had signed the Employment
Agreement that contained an arbitration provision. Volt argued that the signed
Employment Agreement had been found in Joyce's personnel file and urged the trial court
to compare the signature on the Employment Agreement with an admitted signature of
Joyce's. Volt also argued that Joyce "does not dispute the signature is his." (Italics
omitted.) In addition, Volt argued that Joyce had admitted that he had signed an
acknowledgement of the Employee Handbook, and noted that the acknowledgement
stated, " 'I agree to arbitrate any and all disputes related to my employment or
assignment(s) with Volt, as discussed in this [Employee Handbook].' " Volt further
contended that the Orientation Guide did not "[r]escind[ ]" the prior Employee Handbook
because the two documents "served distinct functions," and that it would be "illogical" to
interpret the Orientation Guide as replacing policies outlined in the Employee Handbook.
Volt further contended that Joyce's arguments suggesting that the Employment
Agreement had been altered were misleading. In particular, Volt argued that it was
"irrelevant" that the Employment Agreement may have contained some "collateral
details" that were inaccurate. Volt also argued that Joyce had assented to arbitration
because he "admit[ted] . . . receiv[ing] Volt's arbitration policy when he applied at Volt
and that he then accepted and continued his employment with Volt for two years."
Solar and Robertson filed a separate reply in which they raised arguments not
relevant to the issues addressed in this opinion.
10
F. The trial court's order denying the petition
After hearing argument, the trial court entered an order denying the petition. The
court reasoned in relevant part:
"[Appellants] submit an Employment Agreement dated May 21,
2012 that contains [Joyce's] signature. [Citation.] The Employment
Agreement requires binding arbitration . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] [Joyce]
denies ever seeing the Employment Agreement until after he filed
this lawsuit. [Citation.] [Appellants] bear the burden of proving the
existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the
evidence. [Citation.] [Joyce] has raised significant questions
regarding the document's authenticity. When he was hired, [Joyce]
received but did not sign a different document that contained an
arbitration provision. [Citation.] [Joyce] requested his personnel
file a few days after his termination but he was not given the signed
Employment Agreement. [Citation.] [Joyce's] counsel was not
provided the signed agreement until mid-November 2014.
[Citation.] The Employment Agreement references a job that
[Joyce] was never assigned to, and he does not recall the
representative who allegedly signed on behalf of Volt (Casey
Wood). [Citation.] When [Joyce] sought to obtain more
information regarding the agreement, [appellants] refused to allow
[Joyce] to depose Wood. [Citation.]
"[Appellants] also rely on an arbitration provision in the [Employee
Handbook]. [Joyce] signed an Acknowledgment stating he received
and reviewed the [Employee Handbook]. [Citations.] The
Acknowledgment requires arbitration 'as discussed in this
[Employee Handbook].' However, [Joyce] never received the
[Employee Handbook]. [Citation.] He did, however, receive [the
Orientation Guide] at an orientation on June 4, 2012. [Citations.]
The Orientation Guide supersedes 'any prior handbooks or policy
manuals' issued by Volt and may be 'updated and/or changed by Volt
at any time.' [Citation.] The Orientation Guide is addressed to all
Volt employees who work for Volt nationwide. [Citation.] The
Orientation Guide does not discuss arbitration. For the purposes of
this motion, [Joyce] has proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that the [Employee Handbook], was superseded by the Orientation
Guide, which does not require arbitration.
11
"For all these reasons, [appellants] have not established that [Joyce]
is bound by a valid arbitration agreement."
G. Appellants' appeal
Appellants timely appeal the trial court's order denying their petition to compel
arbitration. The order is appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1294, subd. (a).)
III.
DISCUSSION
The trial court did not err in determining that Joyce had not
manifested his assent to be bound by a valid arbitration agreement
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in determining that they failed to
establish that Joyce had manifested his assent to be bound by a valid arbitration
agreement. We first outline the general principles of law governing the enforceability of
an arbitration provision, and then address each of the three arguments that appellants
advance in support of their claim that the trial court erred in denying their petition to
compel arbitration.
A. General principles of law governing the enforceability of an arbitration provision
Section 1281.2 provides in relevant part, "On petition of a party to an arbitration
agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and
that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the
petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an
agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists . . . ."
12
In Ramos v. Westlake Services LLC (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 674 (Ramos), the
court outlined the law that a trial court is to apply when presented with a petition to
compel arbitration pursuant to Section 1281.2:
"[T]he court's first task is to determine whether the parties have
entered into an agreement to arbitrate their claims. [Citation.]
Courts 'apply general California contract law to determine whether
the parties formed a valid agreement to arbitrate their dispute.'
[Citation.] 'General contract law principles include that "[t]he basic
goal of contract interpretation is to give effect to the parties' mutual
intent at the time of contract[ ]." ' [Citation.] 'Contract law also
requires the parties agree to the same thing in the same sense.'
[Citation.] 'The petitioner [seeking arbitration] bears the burden of
proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a
preponderance of the evidence, while a party opposing the petition
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any
fact necessary to its defense. [Citation.] The trial court sits as the
trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other
documentary evidence, and any oral testimony the court may receive
at its discretion, to reach a final determination.' " (Ramos, supra, at
pp. 685-686.)
Appellants contend that a trial court must apply the strong public policy in favor of
arbitration embodied in the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1) (FAA)6 in determining
the threshold question of whether the parties entered into an arbitration agreement.
Appellants are correct that there are California cases that state "where a transaction falls
under the FAA, even the threshold decision of whether there is an agreement to arbitrate
'must be made " 'with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration.' " ' "
(Erickson v. Aetna Health Plans of California, Inc. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 646, 655; see,
6 Appellants contend that the FAA applies in this case because "Volt is a
multinational corporation engaged in interstate commerce, with employees in every U.S.
state."
13
e.g., City of Vista v. Sutro & Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 401, 407.) More recent cases
have concluded that the "federal policy in favor of arbitration does not come into play,
however, until a court has found the parties entered into a valid contract under state law."
(Metters v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 696, 701.)
The United States Supreme Court has now clarified that "the presumption [in
favor of arbitration] does not apply to disputes concerning whether an agreement to
arbitrate has been made." (Applied Energetics, Inc. v. NewOak Capital Markets, LLC (2d
Cir. 2011) 645 F.3d 522, 526 (italics added), citing Granite Rock Co. v. International
Broth. of Teamsters (2010) 561 U.S. 287, 301 (Granite Rock).) In Granite Rock, the
Supreme Court held that the federal policy favoring arbitration applies "only where a
validly formed and enforceable arbitration agreement is ambiguous about whether it
covers the dispute at hand . . . ." (Granite Rock, at pp. 301, italics added, 302 ["we have
never held that this policy [in favor of arbitration] overrides the principle that a court may
submit to arbitration 'only those disputes . . . that the parties have agreed to submit' "].)
B. The trial court did not err in determining that appellants failed to establish that
Joyce signed the Employment Agreement
Appellants claim that the trial court erred in determining that they had not
demonstrated that Joyce manifested his assent to an arbitration agreement by signing the
Employment Agreement. Appellants raise three distinct arguments in support of this
claim, which we consider in turn.
14
1. The trial court did not fail to properly apply evidentiary rules for
authenticating a writing
Appellants claim that the "trial court failed to apply the proper authentication
standard" (boldface & capitalization omitted) in concluding that they had not established
that Joyce signed the Employment Agreement. This contention raises a question of law
that we review de novo. (See Apex LLC v. Sharing World, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th
999, 1009 [review of a trial court's "selection of the applicable law . . . is reviewed de
novo"].)
Appellants note that a writing may be authenticated by any qualified witness and
that a handwriting comparison done by the court is a valid form of authentication.7
Appellants contend that the trial court "failed to apply" these standards pertaining to the
7 Citing Condee v. Longwood (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219 (Condee), appellants
also assert that a party petitioning to compel arbitration "need only prove an agreement's
existence, at which point the burden shifts to [the respondent] to prove the agreement's
falsity." We agree with the court in Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232
Cal.App.4th 836, 846, that, "[p]roperly understood, Condee holds that a petitioner is not
required to authenticate an opposing party's signature on an arbitration agreement as a
preliminary matter in moving for arbitration or in the event the authenticity of the
signature is not challenged." In this case, Joyce clearly challenged the authenticity of his
signature in his opposition; Condee therefore does not apply and appellants bore the
burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate. (See Espejo v.
Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Apr. 22, 2016, B262717)
___ Cal.App.4th ___ [2016 Cal.App. Lexis 316, p. *22] [discussing Condee and Ruiz and
stating that "[o]nce [party opposing petition to compel arbitration] challenged the validity
of that signature in his opposition, defendants were then required to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the signature was authentic"]; see also Toal v. Tardif
(2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1208, 1219-1220 & fn.8 [stating that in Rosenthal v. Great
Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394 "[O]ur Supreme Court has clearly
stated that a court, before granting a petition to compel arbitration, must determine the
factual issue of 'the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement,' " and that to "the
extent Condee conflicts with Rosenthal, our Supreme Court's decision is controlling"].)
15
law governing the authentication of a writing. This argument is unpersuasive because
there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the trial court failed to consider such
methods of authentication.8 While appellants argue that the trial court's order did not
discuss evidence that appellants contend demonstrates that the Employment Agreement
was properly authenticated, the trial court did refer to the primary piece of evidence
offered by appellants—the Employment Agreement—stating, "[Appellants] submit an
Employment Agreement dated May 21, 2012 that contains [Joyce's] signature."
However, the trial court also stated that Joyce had "raised significant questions regarding
the document's authenticity." Further, the trial court's order provided a detailed
description of the evidence that it relied on in determining that appellants failed to
establish that Joyce in fact signed the Employment Agreement. (See pt. II.F., ante.) In
any event, the fact that the trial court did not "discuss[ ]" all of the appellants' evidence
clearly does not establish that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not "fail[ ] to apply the proper
authentication standard" (boldface & capitalization omitted) in determining the
authenticity of the Employment Agreement.
8 The methods of authentication mentioned in appellants' brief are far from the only
manner by which a writing may be authenticated. (See, e.g., Evid. Code § 1414 [writing
may be authenticated by an admission]; Evid. Code § 1416 [writing may be authenticated
by a witness with personal knowledge of the supposed writer's handwriting]; Evid. Code
§ 1418 [writing may be authenticated by a handwriting comparison made by an expert
witness].)
16
2. Appellants' assertion that undisputed evidence in the record establishes
that Joyce signed the Employment Agreement is incorrect
Appellants also contend that "undisputed evidence proves Joyce signed the
Employment Agreement." (Boldface & capitalization omitted.) As noted previously (see
pt. II.D., ante), in his declaration Joyce stated:
"After the instant motion was filed by [appellants], I reviewed
'Defendant's Exhibit 1 - Employment Agreement.' I had never seen
Defendant's Exhibit 1 - Employment Agreement until after I filed the
instant lawsuit." (Italics added.)
While appellants interpret Joyce's declaration as stating that Joyce denied
"recalling 'seeing' the fully-executed version of the Employment Agreement" (italics
added), that is not what Joyce's declaration says. Joyce's declaration states that he had
never seen the Employment Agreement prior to his filing of this lawsuit. Further, in its
order denying appellants' petition to compel, the trial court stated,"[Joyce] denies ever
seeing the Employment Agreement until after he filed this lawsuit." As the trier of fact,
the trial court could reasonably find that Joyce's declaration constituted evidence
disputing that he had signed the Employment Agreement. Thus, while appellants contend
that "Joyce's carefully worded declaration does not actually dispute that the signature on
the Employment Agreement was his," the trial court was not required to accept
appellants' interpretation of any ambiguity in Joyce's declaration. In addition, as
discussed below, Joyce presented evidence, which the trial court credited, that supported
a finding that Joyce had not signed the Employment Agreement. Thus, we reject
appellants' contention that the "undisputed evidence" (boldface & capitalization omitted)
established that Joyce signed the Employment Agreement.
17
3. There is substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that
appellants failed to establish that Joyce manifested his assent to be bound
by a valid arbitration agreement by signing the Employment Agreement
Appellants contend that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the trial
court's finding that they did not establish that Joyce had manifested his assent to be bound
by a valid arbitration agreement by signing the Employment Agreement.
Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person "might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion," (Estate of Teed (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 638, 644), or
evidence "that is reasonable, credible and of solid value." (Roddenberry v. Roddenberry
(1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 651.) If there is substantial evidence that supports a disputed
finding, a reviewing court must uphold the finding "no matter how slight it may appear in
comparison with the contradictory evidence . . . ." (Howard v. Owens Corning (1999) 72
Cal.App.4th 621, 631; see also Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 479
(Shamblin) ["Even though contrary findings could have been made, an appellate court
should defer to the factual determinations made by the trial court when the evidence is in
conflict. This is true whether the trial court's ruling is based on oral testimony or
declarations"].)
As discussed above, Joyce submitted a declaration stating that he had never seen
the Employment Agreement until after he filed this action. From such declaration the
trial court could plainly infer that Joyce had not signed the Employment Agreement.
(See Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 619, 630 [in
conducting substantial evidence review on review from order denying motion to compel
arbitration, reviewing court must "presume the [trial] court . . . drew every permissible
18
inference necessary to support its judgment"].) Thus, Joyce's declaration, by itself,
constitutes substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that appellants failed to
establish that Joyce manifested his assent to be bound by a valid arbitration agreement by
signing the Employment Agreement. (See In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604,
614 [testimony of a single witness may suffice to constitute substantial evidence].)
Further, the trial court referred to six other facts that it found "raised significant
questions regarding the [Employment Agreement's] authenticity," including that the
Employment Agreement had not been timely provided to Joyce or his counsel in response
to requests for his personnel file. (See pt II.F., ante.) We reject appellants' assertion in
their brief that "the evidence that Joyce did sign the Employment Agreement is
overwhelming." While appellants contend that the signature on the Employment
Agreement is "substantially similar" to a known signature of Joyce's, the trial court was
not required to find that Joyce had signed the Employment Agreement based on such
comparison. In addition, appellants did not provide a declaration from Wood (the person
who purportedly signed the Employment Agreement on Volt's behalf), did not provide a
declaration from any employee who either witnessed Joyce sign the Employment
Agreement or received the signed Employment Agreement from him, and did not provide
a declaration from a handwriting expert attesting that the signature on the Employment
Agreement was Joyce's. While appellants were not required to provide such evidence in
order to prevail on their petition to compel, the absence of such evidence, when
considered in connection with the evidence offered by Joyce in opposition to the petition
19
to compel, demonstrates that the evidence before the trial court that Joyce had signed the
Employment Agreement was far from overwhelming.
Accordingly, although a "contrary finding[ ] could have been made" (Shamblin,
supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 479), we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the
trial court's finding that appellants failed to establish that Joyce signed the Employment
Agreement.
C. The trial court did not err in concluding that the Orientation Guide superseded the
arbitration provision in the Employee Handbook
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in concluding that the Orientation
Guide "[n]ullified" the arbitration provision in the Employee Handbook. Specifically,
appellants claim that that the trial court erred in interpreting a provision of the Orientation
Guide as providing that the Orientation Guide superseded the arbitration provision in the
Employee Handbook. We apply the de novo standard of review to this claim because it
presents a question of contractual9 interpretation that does not turn on the credibility of
extrinsic evidence. (See People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2003) 107
Cal.App.4th 516, 520 [the " 'interpretation of a contract is subject to de novo review
where the interpretation does not turn on the credibility of extrinsic evidence' "].)
9 In their brief, appellants discuss law governing when "[a] statement that a present
contract version supersedes all previous or alternate versions . . . ." (Italics added.) We
assume for purposes of this decision that appellants are correct that both the Orientation
Guide and the Employee Handbook are contracts.
20
1. Factual and procedural background
As noted in part II.D., ante, Joyce acknowledged that, on May 21, 2012, he signed
an acknowledgement form attesting to his receipt of the Employee Handbook. The
acknowledgement form stated in relevant part, "Except as otherwise stated, I agree to
arbitrate any and all disputes related to my employment or assignment(s) with Volt, as
discussed in this [Employee Handbook]."
Joyce presented undisputed evidence that, on June 4, 2012, Volt and Solar issued
the Orientation Guide to him and that he signed a form acknowledging receipt of the
Orientation Guide that same day. The acknowledgement form from the Orientation
Guide states in relevant part, "I understand that this [Orientation Guide] supersedes any
prior handbooks or policy manuals issued by [Volt] . . . ." (Italics omitted.)
2. Governing law
a. General rules of contract interpretation
"[T]he ordinary rules of contract interpretation" are well established. (Santisas v.
Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 608 (Santisas).) The Santisas court described these rules
as follows:
" 'Under statutory rules of contract interpretation, the mutual
intention of the parties at the time the contract is formed governs
interpretation. (Civ. Code, § 1636.) Such intent is to be inferred, if
possible, solely from the written provisions of the contract. (Id.,
§ 1639.) The "clear and explicit" meaning of these provisions,
interpreted in their "ordinary and popular sense," unless "used by the
parties in a technical sense or a special meaning is given to them by
usage" (id., § 1644), controls judicial interpretation. (Id., § 1638.)
Thus, if the meaning a layperson would ascribe to contract language
is not ambiguous, we apply that meaning.' " (Ibid.)
21
b. Case law considering whether an arbitration agreement has been
superseded by a subsequent agreement
In Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary U.S. LLP (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1,
15-16 (Jenks), the court considered whether an agreement between an employee and his
prior employer containing an arbitration provision had been superseded by a subsequent
agreement. In Jenks, an agreement related to the termination of the employee's
employment (Termination Agreement) provided in relevant part, " 'This Agreement
constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter
hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations and agreements, whether written or
oral . . . .' " (Id. at p. 15.) The Jenks court concluded that the Termination Agreement did
not supersede an arbitration agreement contained in a prior agreement (Offer Letter). In
reaching this conclusion, the Jenks court reasoned:
"We conclude this clause does not apply to the forum for resolution
of disputes, as the Offer Letter does, and therefore does not cancel
the Offer Letter's arbitration feature.
"As [employer] observes, the integration clause is explicitly limited
to 'the subject matter hereof,' namely, the terms of plaintiff's
resignation. The Termination Agreement does not mention
arbitration at all, and contains no provisions regarding dispute
resolution. Consequently, the identified forum for dispute resolution
remains arbitration based on the original Offer Letter." (Id. at pp.
15-16.) (Italics omitted.)
The Jenks court reviewed several cases in which courts had considered similar
issues, including Grey v. American Management Services (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 803(Grey) and Cione v. Foresters Equity Services, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 625 (Cione).
The Jenks court concluded that the breadth of the subsequent agreement's integration
22
provision was central in determining whether the arbitration provision in an earlier
agreement had been superseded:
"Grey is distinguishable from the present case, and from Cione, in
that the relevant contract at issue in Grey did not contain the limiting
'with respect to the subject matter of' language found in both the
Cione . . . contract and the Termination Agreement here. (Compare
Cione, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 631 [' "This Agreement contains
the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the
subject matter contained herein. There are no restrictions, promises,
representations, warranties, covenants or undertakings, other than
those expressly set forth or referred to in this Agreement" ' (italics
added)] with Grey, supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 807 [' "This
Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties in connection
with Employee's employment with [employer], and supersedes all
prior and contemporaneous discussions and understandings" ' (italics
added)].)" (Jenks, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 19.)
3. Application
The Orientation Guide states in relevant part, "I understand that this [Orientation
Guide] supersedes any prior handbooks or policy manuals issued by [Volt] . . . ." (Italics
omitted.) The " 'clear and explicit' " meaning of this provision, interpreted in its
" 'ordinary and popular sense' " (Santisas, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 608), is that, as the trial
court concluded, the Orientation Guide supersedes all of the provisions of the Employee
Handbook, including the arbitration provision contained therein.
Appellants do not argue to the contrary. Instead, they argue, "as in Cione, the
[Employee] Handbook and the . . . Orientation Guide are not inconsistent on arbitration
— the [Employee] Handbook requires arbitration and the Orientation Guide is silent on a
23
forum for disputes."10 This argument fails for two related reasons. Cione is
distinguishable because, as noted by the Jenks court, the integration clause at issue in that
case stated that the later agreement constituted " ' "the entire understanding of the parties
hereto with respect to the subject matter contained herein." ' " (Jenks, supra, 243
Cal.App.4th at p. 19, quoting Cione, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 631.) There is no such
limiting language in the provision at issue in the Orientation Guide. In a related vein, the
arbitration provision at issue in Cione could be given effect because to do so would not
be inconsistent with the integration clause. (See Cione, at p. 639 [enforcing arbitration
agreement in registration application form where "written employment agreement was
reasonably susceptible to the meaning that it did not supersede the [registration
application form]"].) In contrast, in this case, giving effect to the arbitration agreement in
the Employee Handbook would be wholly inconsistent with the broad provision in the
Orientation Guide that states that the guide "supersedes any prior handbooks . . . issued
by [Volt] . . . ." (Italics omitted.)
Appellants also argue that it would be "illogical" to "read the . . .Orientation Guide
10 Although not mentioned by the parties, the Orientation Guide is not entirely silent
with respect to a forum for disputes. In a section on sexual harassment, the Orientation
Guide contains the following statement, "It is the right of any employee to make a
complaint through any complaint procedure with Volt and its subsidiaries and
divisions . . . . Any employee may also file a complaint under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, or any applicable law in the state in which such harassment takes
place."
24
as superseding all policies in the [Employee] Handbook." In support of this contention,
appellants maintain that the Employee Handbook includes several polices covering topics
that are not covered in the Orientation Guide. However, we agree with Joyce that we
may not "ignore the parties' express language" in the Orientation Guide so as to interpret
the Orientation Guide as being limited to, as the appellants argue, the explanation of
"specific rules and expectations unique to the assignment at Solar." Further, a review of
the Orientation Guide demonstrates that it in fact touches on many of the topics that
appellants contend are covered only by the Employee Handbook. For example,
appellants note that the Employee Handbook contains information on "various
employment benefits," "[p]rocedures and policies for when the employee is on
assignment, including communication with Volt," and "[e]mployee rights to privacy,
safety, security, and equal employment opportunity." The Orientation Guide has a
section on "benefits," contains information on "the correct point of contact for any issues
or concerns you may have while on assignment," and has provisions pertaining to e-mail
privacy, "security policies," (formatting omitted) and policies related to sexual
harassment.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that the
Orientation Guide superseded the arbitration provision in the Employee Handbook.
25
D. Joyce did not manifest his implied assent to an arbitration agreement by
continuing his employment with Volt after learning of the existence of an
arbitration agreement
Appellants claim that the trial court erred in failing to find that Joyce implicitly
manifested his assent to be bound by an arbitration agreement.11 We assume for
purposes of this decision that appellants are correct that "[b]ecause the trial court made
no factual findings related to Joyce's continued employment (and because there is no
dispute of fact with regard thereto), this point of law is reviewed . . . de novo."
1. Governing law
In Craig, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th 416, an employer sent a memorandum to all
employees that contained the following language:
"The enclosed brochure explains the procedures as well as how the
Dispute Resolution Program works as a whole. Please take the time
to read the material. IT APPLIES TO YOU. It will govern all
future legal disputes between you and the Company that are related
in any way to your employment." (Id. at p. 419.)
The brochure also "explained the Program's four-step progression — from open
access to management, to an informal conference, to mediation, to arbitration," and
described the arbitration process. (Craig, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 419.) The trial
court in Craig compelled arbitration based on the memorandum. (Id. at pp. 418-419.)
11 In his respondent's brief, Joyce contends that appellants forfeited this issue by
raising this argument for the first time in their reply brief in the trial court. We disagree.
In their petition to compel, appellants argued, "[b]oth acceptance [of an arbitration
agreement] and consideration are shown by an employee's continued employment," and
thereafter cited authority relevant to this contention. By raising the contention and citing
applicable authority, appellants adequately raised the issue in their petition to compel.
26
The Craig court rejected the employee's claim that there was insufficient evidence
to prove the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. The Craig court noted that a party's
acceptance of an agreement to arbitrate may be "implied-in-fact where, as here, the
employee's continued employment constitutes her acceptance of an agreement proposed
by her employer." (Craig, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 420.) The Craig court reasoned
that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the employee had agreed to
be bound by the Dispute Resolution Program, including its arbitration provision, because
she had had received the memorandum in 1993 and 1994 and had continued to work for
the employer until 1997. (Id. at p. 422.)
In Mitri, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th 1164, the court considered whether the Craig
court's theory of implied-in-fact assent applied where the document containing the
arbitration provision required the employee's signature in order to be effective. The Mitri
court concluded that the Craig court's theory of implied assent could not be reasonably
applied in such a circumstance:
"Unlike the arbitration agreement provision in the Arnel Employee
Handbook, the memorandum in [Craig] established in and of itself
the employer's dispute resolution program, and did not include an
express requirement that its employees sign an arbitration
agreement. Therefore, [Craig] is inapposite.
"Defendants also contend the signed arbitration agreement required
by the arbitration agreement provision in the Arnel Employee
Handbook was impliedly unnecessary to establish an arbitration
agreement between Arnel and plaintiffs. However, such an
interpretation of the arbitration agreement provision contradicts that
same provision's express term requiring a signed agreement. (See
Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Development California,
Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 342, 374 . . . ['implied terms should never be
read to vary express terms']; Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)
27
149 Cal.App.4th 836, 855, fn. 12 . . . [' "[i]t is universally recognized
the scope of conduct prohibited by the covenant of good faith is
circumscribed by the purposes and express terms of the
contract" '].)" (Id. at pp. 1172-1173.)
Similarly, in Gorlach, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th 1497, the court concluded that
Craig does not govern where the document containing the arbitration provision is not
unilaterally imposed, but instead requires an employee's signature in order to become
effective:
"We do not agree that [Craig] governs the present case. In [Craig],
the employee memorandum did not ask employees to sign an
arbitration agreement; it simply informed them that any
employment-related dispute would henceforth be subject to
arbitration. The employee handbook in the present case is different:
Rather than unilaterally imposing an arbitration requirement, the
handbook told employees that, 'As a condition to employment, all
Team Members must sign the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate
Claims . . . .' (Italics added.) In other words, the handbook told
employees that they must sign the arbitration agreement, implying
that it was not effective until (and unless) they did so. Because
Gorlach never signed the arbitration agreement, we cannot imply the
existence of such an agreement between the parties." (Id. at p.
1509.)
2. Factual and procedural background
In their petition to compel arbitration, appellants suggested that Joyce manifested
his assent to the Employment Agreement Arbitration Provision and the Handbook
Arbitration Provision by continuing his employment after having become aware of each
provision.
In his opposition, Joyce denied ever having seen the Employment Agreement
Arbitration Provision prior to the commencement of this litigation and claimed that the
Handbook Arbitration Provision had been superseded by the Orientation Guide. In his
28
declaration lodged with his opposition, Joyce acknowledged having received, but did not
recall signing, the Employment Application Arbitration Provision. The Employment
Application contains an arbitration provision identical to that contained in the
Employment Agreement. (See pt. II.B., ante.) Near the bottom of the Employment
Application, the document contains a space for the applicant's signature, under a line that
states, "I/We have read and agree to the above employment terms and conditions."
(Boldface & capitalization omitted.)
In its reply, Volt argued that "Joyce admits he received Volt's arbitration policy
when he applied at Volt and that he then accepted and continued his employment with
Volt for two years." Volt contended that Joyce's continued employment with Volt
manifested his intent to be bound by Volt's arbitration policy.
The trial court did not address whether Joyce had assented to an arbitration
provision by continuing his employment with Volt after becoming aware of the existence
of such provision.
3. Application
On appeal, appellants note that the Handbook Arbitration Provision states, "Your
continued employment with Volt is your agreement to the above provision requiring
arbitration of any and all employment/assignment disputes."12 Appellants also note that
12 The arbitration provision in the Employment Application and the Employment
Agreement do not contain such a provision.
29
Joyce admitted receiving and signing an Employee Handbook acknowledgement form.
Appellants contend that Joyce manifested his assent to be bound by the Handbook
Arbitration Provision by continuing his employment with Volt after executing such an
acknowledgement.
This argument fails because we concluded in part III.C., ante, that the Employee
Handbook was superseded by the Orientation Guide. Accordingly, even if Joyce did
assent to the arbitration provision in the Employee Handbook, the Employee Handbook
was superseded by the Orientation Guide.
Appellants also contend that Joyce admitted in his declaration that he " 'received' "
the Employment Agreement and that Joyce recalled that the Employment Agreement
contained an arbitration policy. Appellants misstate the record. Joyce stated in his
declaration that he had not seen the Employment Agreement until after the
commencement of this litigation (see pt. II.D., ante), and we have concluded that there is
substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that Joyce did not manifest his
assent to be bound by the Employment Agreement. (See pt III.B., ante.) Thus,
appellants have not established that Joyce impliedly agreed to the Employment
Agreement Arbitration Provision.
Although not expressly referred to by appellants in their brief, we acknowledge
that Joyce stated in his declaration that he had seen, but did not recall signing, the
30
Employment Application, which contains an arbitration provision. However, as with the
documents at issue in Gorlach and Mitri, the Employment Application expressly requires
a party's signature in order to be effective. (See Gorlach, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at p.
1509; Mitri, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1172-1173.) We agree with the Gorlach and
Mitri courts that a party's assent to a document may not be implied under Craig where the
document requires a party's signature in order to be effective. (See Gorlach, at p. 1509
[distinguishing Craig and stating "the handbook told employees that they must sign the
arbitration agreement, implying that it was not effective until (and unless) they did so"];
Mitri, at pp. 1172-1173 [same].)13
Accordingly, we conclude that Joyce did not manifest his implied assent to an
arbitration agreement by continuing his employment with Volt after learning of the
existence of an arbitration agreement.
13 Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012)
55 Cal.4th 223 (Pinnacle), upon which appellants relied in the trial court and on appeal,
does not provide any additional support for appellants' claim beyond that provided in
Craig. The Pinnacle court merely cited to Craig for the generic proposition that "[a]
signed agreement [to arbitrate] is not necessary . . . and a party's acceptance may be
implied in fact," while outlining the general law governing the enforceability of
arbitration agreements. (Id. at p. 236.) For the reasons stated in the text, Craig is
distinguishable and Joyce's assent to an arbitration provision may not be implied under
the circumstances of this case.
31
IV.
DISPOSITION
The order denying the petition to compel arbitration is affirmed.
AARON, J.
I CONCUR:
PRAGER, J.*
I CONCUR IN THE RESULT:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
32