Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, ARBITRATION—N.D. Cal.: Technology company employee must arbitrate claims even though company failed to produce signed agreement, (Jan 15, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The company pointed to its process requiring employees to sign an arbitration agreement and to its electronic document repository that automatically time stamps when a document is signed.

Despite a biometric technology company’s inability to provide a copy of the commission compensation agreement signed by its former employee, which contained an arbitration provision, the employee must arbitrate her employment-related claims against the company. Granting the company’s motion to compel, a federal court in California found its electronic management system showed the employee signed the agreement, the agreement applied to her claims even though she was no longer employed there, and it was enforceable after severing a provision waiving representative PAGA claims (Go v. AlClear, LLC, No. 25-cv-08216-LB (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026)).

Compensation agreement. As an “ambassador” for the nationwide biometric technology company, the employee worked at San Francisco International Airport between December 2022 and September 2023 helping to verify the identifies of customers using biometric data like fingerprints and irises. Prior to that, the company instituted its “Clear Happiness Commission Compensation Agreement,” a four-page document with an arbitration section requiring arbitration of all employment-related disputes on an individual basis.

Clear Hub. The company also maintained an electronic learning management system called Clear Hub to provide and store employment documents. Employees reviewing and signing documents were required to log into Clear Hub using a single sign on and unique password that all new employees set up through an access management company. Employees cannot access Clear Hub without entering their single sign on, and no one at the company can discover another individual’s unique password. Clear Hub automatically generates a time stamp on an employee’s Clear Hub transcript reflecting the date and time a document was signed.

According to the employee, she was told in March 2023 to go to the company’s office and sign paperwork on a computer. She claimed she was provided a short amount of time to sign lengthy documents and that signing the documents was a mandatory condition of her employment. She alleged that she could not recall signing an arbitration agreement and never intended to waive her right to a jury trial. Her Clear Hub transcript, however, showed she signed the compensation agreement on March 25.

She subsequently sued the company for various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, and it moved to compel arbitration.

Existence of agreement. In response, the employee argued that because she did not remember signing a document with an arbitration clause, the company had to produce a copy of the document with her signature, which it did not do. Disagreeing, the court found the electronic record and a declaration by a company official established the existence of the agreement. The declaration explained in detail all the steps required for the employee’s Clear Hub transcript to indicate she signed the agreement, including that it required using unique login criteria known only to her. Nor did the fact that she did not remember signing the agreement negate the agreement, the court observed, explaining that the Clear Hub transcript showed she signed the actual arbitration agreement rather than having only received the documentation.

Applicability of compensation agreement. The employee also argued that the compensation agreement did not apply to her because she was no longer employed with the company. In support, she pointed to language in the agreement that “[a]n Ambassador will stop participating in this Agreement when: (a) the Ambassador’s employment with CLEAR ends.” But this language, said the court, refers to participation in the commission plan. Moreover, the arbitration agreement stated that it governs “any disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or Ambassador’s employment with CLEAR or termination” and also provided that even after the end of an employee’s employment, “the terms of this Agreement shall survive such termination.”

Unconscionability. Finally, the employee argued that the compensation agreement was unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion, it made no reference to the arbitration provision until page three, she only had a short time to complete and review the agreement, she was not provided a copy of the agreement in advance, she was not allowed to negotiate terms, and she was not given a chance to have an attorney review the document. The court, however, pointed out that the agreement was less than four full pages, the arbitration provision was labeled in conspicuous font, and the employee did not claim anyone verbally pressured her to sign it. That the agreement was adhesive, however, and that she only had a short amount of time to review it without an attorney, supported some procedural unconscionability.

But regardless of how great the procedural unconscionability, a contract is enforceable under California law unless it is also substantively unconscionable, the court stated, noting that while the employee challenged multiple provisions of the compensation agreement, only the provision requiring that all relief be on an individual basis, precluding a representative PAGA claim, was actually unconscionable.

As to whether it could be severed, the Ninth Circuit has determined that severance is appropriate in similar circumstances and the employee did not identify any case in which the presence of a single PAGA waiver rendered an entire arbitration agreement unenforceable because it could not be severed. Accordingly, the court severed the offending provision and compelled arbitration of the employee’s claims.

The case is No. 25-cv-08216-LB.

Judge: Beeler, L.

Attorneys: Brett Donald Szmanda (Lavi & Ebrahimian) for Jenna M. Go. Liam Nalu Gaarder-Feingold (Jackson Lewis) for AlClear, LLC.

Companies: AlClear, LLC

Cases: Arbitration StateLawClaims Procedure CaliforniaNews