California Court Refuses to Enforce Arbitration Agreement Not Signed by Employer

Follow us on LinkedIn to see future News.

Karen Edginton Milner

March 11, 2025

A recent unpublished opinion by a California appeals court illustrates the importance to employers of carefully drafting arbitration agreements, especially in California, where courts are often hostile to arbitration agreements between employers and employees. In Pich v. LaserAway LLC, the court upheld the denial of an employer’s motion to compel arbitration on the ground that the employer had failed to sign the arbitration agreement and thus had not proven the existence of an agreement between the parties to arbitrate.

When the employee was hired, she electronically signed several documents using the employer’s computerized onboarding process, including a document titled Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Employment Related Disputes (“Agreement”).  It was undisputed that the employer had not signed the Agreement.

The court noted that the absence of an employer’s signature is not always dispositive, but found that, in this case, the plain language of the Agreement required the employer’s signature to form an agreement to arbitrate. The court distinguished cases that enforced arbitration agreements that were not countersigned by the employer, noting that none of those cases involved language stating that a signature from both parties was necessary to form an agreement.

In interpreting the Agreement as requiring the employer’s signature to evidence agreement to arbitrate, the court relied on two provisions in particular:

• “The Company and I understand and agree that, by signing this Agreement, we are expressly waiving any and all rights to a trial before a judge and/or a jury…“
• “The parties acknowledge and agree that each has read this agreement carefully and understand that by signing it, each is waiving all rights to a trial or hearing before a judge or jury of any and all disputes and claims subject to arbitration under this agreement.”

The court rejected the employer’s argument that it should be found to have signed the agreement because its name is printed on the Agreement and because the Agreement is presented to all employees through a secure online portal bearing its name. It also commented that the lack of a signature line for the employer did not negate the unambiguous language requiring signature by both parties.

Employer Takeaways
The lesson to be learned from this case goes beyond its holding, as the result was based on the specific language of the arbitration agreement in question. Its significance lies in its reminder of the importance of not only careful drafting but also familiarity on the part of the employer with its own obligations under its agreements with employees.

The author of this article, Karen Edginton Milner, is a member of the Bars of Louisiana and Pennsylvania.  This article is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice in Louisiana, Pennsylvana, California, or any other jurisdiction, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with any reader of the article where one does not exist.  Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.