Quilala v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 2025 WL 3639429 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Francisco Quilala alleged sexual harassment based on sexual orientation and other employment-related claims against his former employer (Securitas Security Services). In response to the complaint, the employer filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied based on the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA). Quilala alleged, among other things, that his supervisor asked “instrusive questions” about his sexual activity and mocked him by referring to him as “Mrs. Quilala” before he was fired. Although Quilala did not oppose the motion to compel arbitration based on the EFAA, the trial court nevertheless relied upon the statute in denying the motion. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration and held the trial court’s tentative ruling was sufficient for due process purposes to notify the employer that the court intended to rely upon the EFAA. Further, the Court held the trial court was not required to give the employer additional time to provide supplemental briefing on the issue especially given the employer’s failure to request it. Relying upon Casey v. Superior Court, 108 Cal App. 5th 575 (2025), among other recent cases, the Court further held the “non-harassment” claims could not be carved out and ordered to arbitration as the “EFAA applies to the case as a whole.”
[View source.]
