Holding The Line on Employment Arbitration: What Employers Need to Know After Ding, Bruce & Rickes

Employment arbitration in California just got harder to defend. Ding v. Structure Therapeutics and Bruce v. Adams & Reese are rapidly reshaping the EFAA landscape — under the Ninth Circuit’s Ding decision, even claims discovered after arbitration begins may invoke the Act. And Rickes v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Quach v. California Commerce Club, and Hohenshelt v. Superior Court reset what employers must prove on electronic assent, waiver, and arbitration fees.

The traps are concrete. Plead a qualifying sexual harassment dispute, and the EFAA can take an entire case — not just one claim — out of arbitration. Roll out agreements through electronic onboarding without proof of assent, and the motion to compel fails. Litigate too long before moving, and the right to arbitrate is waived. Miss California’s fee-payment deadlines, and Hohenshelt’s consequences follow.

This program works through the employer’s playbook end to end. You leave with strategies for challenging EFAA applicability at the pleading and motion-to-compel stages, and severability provisions that preserve arbitration of remaining claims. You also take home best practices for electronic signatures, acknowledgments, and audit trails — plus a practical framework for auditing formation, waiver, fee-payment, and administrative weaknesses in existing arbitration programs.