On July 8, 2020, the California Court of Appeals held that when an employee fails to initial a specific part of an arbitration agreement, but still signs it, the agreement is still enforceable.

Plaintiff Joseph Martinez brought a series of employment claims against his former employer, BaronHR, Inc., which moved to compel arbitration. Martinez opposed the motion to compel arbitration on the ground that he did not initial the provision outlining his agreement to waive his right to a trial by jury. Martinez argued that the absence of his initials expressed an intent not to arbitrate despite the fact that he actually signed the bottom of the agreement. The trial court agreed with Martinez, and BaronHR appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and compelled Martinez to arbitrate his claims. The Court found that the absence of Martinez’s initials on one specific provision was “of no legal consequence” because Martinez’s signature at the end of the agreement supported his intent to agree to all the terms therein.

The Court distinguished this holding from the holdings in Esparza v. Sand & Sea, Inc. and Mitri v. Arnel Management Co. The Court noted that in both of those cases, the employer sought to compel arbitration on the basis of an agreement included in an employee handbook, and they were not “stand-alone” agreements signed by the employee. The Court held that a signed stand-alone agreement evidences an intent to abide by the terms of the agreement.

Arbitration agreements are one of the best defenses an employer can implement against class actions and costly legal battles. This case presents yet another example of the variety of novel arguments being pursued by plaintiffs’ attorneys in an effort to avoid enforceability of arbitration agreements in California.

This decision, while beneficial for employers, stands as yet another reminder for employers to ensure that their arbitration agreements are stand-alone agreements, executed by the employees—and also to ensure that their agreements comply with the multiple requirements under California law.

Back to Commercial Litigation Update Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors

Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Commercial Litigation Update posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.