Thomas Vo was hired by Technology Credit Union (TCU) in 2020. RCU required that he sign an arbitration agreement. TCU terminated Vo after he contracted COVID-19 and was facing long-term health issues. Vo sued TCU for wrongful termination, discrimination, and harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
TCU sought to enforce arbitration on Vo’s claims based on the signed arbitration agreement. Vo argued the arbitration process was unfair because it restricted his ability to perform discovery and collect evidence from third parties before the hearing.
The trial court denied TCU’s motion to compel arbitration, ruling that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable as it was unfairly one-sided. The court referenced Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020), which determined that the JAMS arbitration rules in place at the time did not permit arbitrators to compel third-party discovery before a hearing. The judge concluded that this restriction could prevent Vo from securing critical evidence to support his claims, making the arbitration agreement fundamentally unfair.
The court of appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling. The court of appeal relied on the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024), which clarified that arbitration agreements should be interpreted to give arbitrators broad discretion in allowing necessary discovery, including from third parties. The court took a pro-arbitration approach, emphasizing that arbitration rules should be read expansively to ensure fair access to evidence and due process.
As a result, the appellate court directed the trial court to grant TCU’s motion to compel arbitration and pause the lawsuit.
Note: This ruling reinforces the enforceability of arbitration agreements, particularly those structured to allow arbitrators to permit necessary discovery. Employers should ensure their arbitration agreements are crafted carefully to explicitly allow for reasonable discovery to avoid enforceability challenges.
Vo v. Technology Credit Union (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 632.