Golden Queen Mining Company, LLC is a California company that operates the Soledad Mountain gold and silver mine in Mojave, California. In March 2019, Carlos Ramirez was hired by Queen Mining as a nonexempt hourly employee to perform electrical work. Ramirez’s employment ended in August 2022. As part of Queen Mining’s onboarding process, new employees were provided with many documents including an employee handbook containing an arbitration agreement.
In October 2022, Ramirez filed a class action complaint against Queen Mining alleging causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages, pay minimum wages, provide meal periods, provide rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, indemnify employees for expenses incurred in performing their jobs, and pay for accrued, unused vacation time upon termination.
Queen Mining filed a motion to compel arbitration, which included a declaration from Queen Mining’s human resources manager who asserted that Ramirez signed an arbitration agreement on or around March 28, 2019. Attached as exhibits were copies of a two-page arbitration agreement, a handbook acknowledgement purportedly signed by Ramirez and dated March 28, 2019, and six other documents purportedly signed by Ramirez and dated March 28, 2019.
Ramirez opposed the motion, claiming that Queen Mining could not prove the existence of the arbitration agreement because Queen Mining failed to authenticate the arbitration agreement, and even if authentic, the signature on the employee handbook acknowledgment did not constitute valid agreement to arbitration. In support of his arguments, Ramirez provided a sworn declaration where he stated that he did not recall ever being presented with an arbitration agreement, he did not recall ever signing an arbitration agreement, he was not informed about the arbitration agreement, and until his counsel explained it to him, he did not know what arbitration was. Ramirez declared that if someone had explained what an arbitration agreement was, he would not have signed the agreement.
The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding that Queen Mining failed to demonstrate the existence of an executed arbitration agreement. The trial court noted that including the arbitration agreement in the handbook was distinguishable from previous cases where the arbitration agreement was a separate signed document. Queen Mining appealed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals considered the evidence presented by Queen Mining, and concluded that Queen Mining met its burden of showing the existence of a written arbitration agreement. The Court reasoned that the handbook acknowledgment contained the following language in bold and underlined: “My signature also acknowledges and certifies that I understand and voluntarily agree to terms of the Company Arbitration Agreement.” The acknowledgment also directed employees to contact Human Resources with any questions regarding the contents of the handbook. Queen Mining had evidence that Ramirez signed the acknowledgment. In addition, Queen Mining had evidence that Ramirez completed the New Hire Orientation Checklist, which included his handwritten initials next to “Arbitration Agreement” and “Handbook Acknowledgement.”
Although Ramirez claimed he did not remember signing the acknowledgement, the Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence that there was a dispute about the existence of the arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Ramirez did not provide evidence showing that his signatures or initials were inauthentic or forged. Therefore, there was no dispute as to the authenticity of the signature on the acknowledgement. The Court of Appeals determined that the inability to recall signing a document is not enough to establish that a contract was not formed.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Note: This case establishes that, even if an employee cannot remember signing an arbitration agreement, if the employer has concrete evidence that the employee signed the agreement, that is enough.
Ramirez v. Golden Queen Mining Co., LLC (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 821.