Think a handbook policy guarantees arbitration? Not so fast.
A recent decision in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California addressed a dispute as to the existence of an arbitration agreement between Verily Life Sciences, LLC (Verily) and a former employee. Ryan Sloan, a former employee of Verily, filed a lawsuit alleging that Verily mishandled sensitive health data collected through its wellness platform. Verily responded by seeking to compel arbitration under what it claimed was a valid employment agreement.
The court denied that motion, finding that Verily failed to prove that Sloan had actually agreed to arbitrate. While Verily pointed to a general acknowledgment Sloan signed regarding company policies, the court held this was not enough to compel arbitration.
The court emphasized that since the arbitration clause wasn’t clearly presented or expressly accepted, it was unenforceable.
The ruling reinforces that employers must be able to show clear, documented consent before forcing employees into arbitration.
For businesses, this case serves as a reminder that courts are unlikely to assume arbitration agreements are enforceable simply because a policy was emailed or included in a handbook. To protect the ability to arbitrate disputes, agreements must be separate, specific, and clearly accepted by the employee. Failing to meet those standards could leave the business defending claims in open court.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about your specific situation, you should contact a lawyer for assistance. Nothing herein is intended to create any attorney-client relationship between you and DLM LAW.
