The California Court of Appeal has ruled that healthcare giant Anthem Health (currently known as Elevance) could not force its long-term employee, Mr. Gregory Antoniono, to arbitrate his claims. (Case B327595, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 3). After a nearly two-year legal battle, the Court's decision cleared the way for the case to be litigated in Los Angeles County Superior Court and presented to a judge and jury rather than an arbitrator.
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif., Oct. 24, 2024 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- The California Court of Appeal has ruled that healthcare giant Anthem Health (currently known as Elevance) could not force its long-term employee, Mr. Gregory Antoniono, to arbitrate his claims. (Case B327595, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 3). After a nearly two-year legal battle, the Court's decision cleared the way for the case to be litigated in Los Angeles County Superior Court and presented to a judge and jury rather than an arbitrator.
In March 2023, the trial court rejected Anthem/Elevance's motion to compel arbitration because the company failed to demonstrate that Mr. Antoniono assented to submit his claims to arbitration and, accordingly, that no agreement to arbitrate was formed. (Case No. 22STCV26362, Los Angeles County Superior Court). The trial court noted that Mr. Antoniono, at the time he signed his offer letter, had not yet been given the opportunity to read the terms of the company's arbitration policy. It also noted the homepage on the company's intranet website (from which the policy could allegedly be accessed) stated that "These policies are not intended to be a contract (express or implied), nor are they intended to otherwise create any legally enforceable obligations on the part of the company or its associates."
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Court held that Anthem/Elevance failed to establish the "minimum" requirements of an implied agreement to arbitrate, which require the employer to "clearly communicate to the employee both that assenting to arbitration is a condition of employment and what the terms of the employer's policy are."
The Court rejected Anthem/Elevance's argument that Mr. Antoniono impliedly agreed to arbitrate his claims when he signed his offer letter, which referred to an arbitration policy but did not either attach the policy or provide him with a means to access it on its intranet website. Moreover, even on the intranet website, the Court noted that the arbitration policy was buried among myriad other policies (including on topics such as attendance and dress code) and that the homepage of that website, as the trial court had observed, disclaimed that any of the policies were intended to form a contract. Quoting another case, the Court concluded that the disclaimer "meant exactly what it said – that [it] was not intended to create 'any legally enforceable obligations.'"
Commenting on the Court's decision, Mr. Antoniono's attorney, Gregory D. Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP, stated: "After litigating this issue for the better part of two years, we are pleased that the Court of Appeal reached what we believe to be the correct decision. When an individual is forced to arbitrate, they are giving up their fundamental constitutional right to a jury trial. As with all constitutional rights, we should analyze any waiver with an extremely high level of scrutiny."
Media Contact
Gregory D Helmer, HelmerFriedman LLP, 1 3103967714, [email protected], HelmerFriedman LLP
SOURCE HelmerFriedman LLP
Share this article