COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMS—ARBITRATION AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE IN VELARDE V. MONROE OPERATIONS, LLC (2025) 111 CAL. APP. 5TH 1009
Jun 06, 2025OUTCOME: Affirmed
I am proud to announce a major appellate victory in Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC (2025) — a published decision in which the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion ... to compel arbitration. Pletcher Law, APC handled the appellate briefing in this case in collaboration with Law Offices of Reisner & King LLP, securing an opinion that strengthens protections for employees facing unfair and deceptive arbitration practices. This decision is now one of the strongest recent examples of courts scrutinizing workplace arbitration agreements and refusing to enforce them when employers use misleading, rushed, or oppressive onboarding practices. A VICTORY BUILT ON STRATEGIC APPELLATE ADVOCACY In handling the appellate briefing, our focus was on exposing the employer's improper onboarding tactics and the inherent unfairness of the arbitration terms. The Court of Appeal agreed. KEY FINDINGS IN THE OPINION The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because the employee was required to sign over 30 documents in a rushed, high-pressure onboarding environment while an HR representative waited. The employer's representative made misleading statements downplaying the nature of the documents and failing to disclose the binding arbitration clause. The agreement's terms created substantive unconscionability, imposing unfair and unexpected burdens on the employee. Based on this combination of procedural and substantive flaws, the court held the arbitration agreement unenforceable and affirmed the denial of the motion to compel. This published opinion offers plaintiff's attorneys powerful support for defeating similar arbitration agreements statewide.
