SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on Thursday granted Nordstrom’s motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action brought by former customer service employee Yusha Truelove, finding the retailer proved he electronically signed the required dispute-resolution agreements.
Truelove, who worked for Nordstrom from June 2021 to October 2024, sued the retailer under the California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code, alleging violations including unpaid wages and failure to provide meal and rest breaks.
The dispute centered on whether Nordstrom authenticated Truelove’s electronic signature on the onboarding 2021 Dispute Resolution Agreement (DRA) and whether the contract was induced by fraud.
Nordstrom submitted affidavits showing Truelove used a unique username and password to log into the company’s careers website, checked a box confirming he had read and understood the terms, and clicked “Save and Continue” to accept the agreement.
Truelove argued Nordstrom failed to provide audit trails for the electronic signature and claimed he was pressured into signing to keep his job while having limited English proficiency.
Beeler found Nordstrom met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, noting that while audit trails are reliable, no authority requires them to authenticate a signature when other evidence establishes the signer’s identity.
The plaintiff, who stated his first language is Burmese and second is Hindi, claimed Nordstrom knew of his language barrier but deprived him of the opportunity to learn the contract terms.
The court rejected the fraud in the execution claim, finding Truelove alleged no misrepresentation by Nordstrom and had 11 days to review the contract before his start date.
The order also addressed the DRAs’ delegation clauses, which require an arbitrator—not a court—to decide issues regarding the validity or enforceability of the agreement.
Beeler ruled the delegation clauses were valid and that Truelove’s challenges to the arbitration provisions as a whole, including claims of unconscionability, must be decided by the arbitrator.
The judge found the DRAs contained minimal procedural and substantive unconscionability, distinguishing the case from Penilla v. Westmont Corp. where mobile-home owners lacked sufficient time to review agreements.
The DRAs apply mutually to disputes arising from Truelove’s application, employment, or termination, and do not cover claims arising after employment ended, unlike the agreement struck down in Cook v. University of Southern California.
Beeler stayed the case pending arbitration, resolving the motion filed under ECF No. 11.
Truelove’s name when he signed the documents was Nay Lin, which he later changed to Yusha Truelove.