{"id":3219,"date":"2026-09-11T13:10:59","date_gmt":"2026-09-11T17:10:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3219"},"modified":"2026-09-11T13:11:00","modified_gmt":"2026-09-11T17:11:00","slug":"the-class-action-weekly-wire-episode-164-washington-appellate-court-affirms-rejection-of-motion-to-compel-arbitration-in-wage-hour-class-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/09\/11\/the-class-action-weekly-wire-episode-164-washington-appellate-court-affirms-rejection-of-motion-to-compel-arbitration-in-wage-hour-class-action\/","title":{"rendered":"The Class Action Weekly Wire \u2013 Episode 164: Washington Appellate Court Affirms Rejection Of Motion To Compel Arbitration In Wage &amp; Hour Class Action"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/09\/image-1.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"576\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/09\/image-1-1024x576.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-3220\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/09\/image-1-1024x576.png 1024w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/09\/image-1-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/09\/image-1-768x432.png 768w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/09\/image-1-1536x864.png 1536w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/09\/image-1.png 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 767px) 89vw, (max-width: 1000px) 54vw, (max-width: 1071px) 543px, 580px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Duane Morris Takeaway:<\/em><\/strong><em> <\/em>This week\u2019s episode features Duane Morris partner Jennifer Riley and senior Associate Kat Alphonso with their analysis of a ruling from the Washington Court of Appeals affirming a trial court\u2019s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a wage &amp; hour class action. &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Check out today\u2019s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: <a href=\"https:\/\/open.spotify.com\/show\/2HZP212kEycOPXPY7Qppzr\">Spotify<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/music.amazon.com\/podcasts\/a23249e0-d394-470c-ba27-b4d87dcf4381\/the-class-action-weekly-wire\">Amazon Music<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/podcasts.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/the-class-action-weekly-wire\/id1709589577\">Apple Podcasts<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/podcastindex.org\/podcast\/6626090\">Podcast Index<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/tunein.com\/radio\/The-Class-Action-Weekly-Wire-p3882927\/\">Tune In<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.listennotes.com\/podcasts\/the-class-action-weekly-wire-duane-morris-uQEYrwG7MOU\/\">Listen Notes<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.iheart.com\/podcast\/269-the-class-action-weekly-wi-124460701\/\">iHeartRadio<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.deezer.com\/us\/show\/1000307221\">Deezer<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@DMClassAction\">YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Episode 164: Washington Appellate Court Affirms Rejection Of Motion To Compel Arbitration\" width=\"525\" height=\"295\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/y1ZudOF7EZc?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Episode Transcript<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jennifer Riley:<\/strong> Hello, everyone, and thank you again for being here for the next episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire. I&#8217;m Jennifer Riley and joining me today is Kat Alphonso. Today, we&#8217;re discussing an interesting wage and hour ruling out of Washington that employers should really pay close attention to. The case is <em>Daryl Clemons v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.<\/em> The Washington Court of Appeals in that case affirmed a trial court&#8217;s denial of an employer&#8217;s motion to compel arbitration in a proposed wage and hour class action. So, it&#8217;s an important ruling. Kat, thank you for being on the podcast today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Kat Alphonso:<\/strong> Thank you for having me, Jen. You&#8217;re right, this is a very important decision, because it highlights that even in jurisdictions that generally favor arbitration, courts are still going to scrutinize how arbitration agreements are presented to employees. The takeaway here isn&#8217;t necessarily about the language of the agreement itself, but about the process that the employer uses when obtaining the employee&#8217;s signature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Great. Let&#8217;s start, if we can, with the background. Can you tell our listeners what happened in this case?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Kat:<\/strong> Sure. The plaintiff, Daryl Clemons, began working for Securitas Security Services USA in 2008. During his employment, he signed an updated dispute resolution agreement in 2011 that required employment-related disputes to be resolved through final and binding arbitration rather than in court. Years later, Securitas terminated his employment in 2023. He subsequently filed a proposed wage and hour class action, alleging that the company failed to provide legally required meal and rest breaks, and failed to pay employees all hours worked, including overtime. When Securitas moved to compel the arbitration, and based on the 2011 agreement, the trial court denied the motion, and the company appealed. The Washington Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court&#8217;s decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">J<strong>ennifer:<\/strong> One thing that stood out to me here is that the appellate court acknowledged that Washington strongly favors arbitration. So, this wasn&#8217;t a court expressing hostility toward arbitration agreements generally, was it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Kat:<\/strong> Not at all. In fact, the court expressly reiterated Washington&#8217;s long-standing policy favoring arbitration and noted that courts make presumptions in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements, but the court also emphasized that it remains the judiciary responsibility to determine whether a particular arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable. The question here was whether this particular agreement was procedurally unconscionable, and that&#8217;s where the employer ran into problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Okay, great. Let&#8217;s talk about procedural unconscionability. What exactly did the court find here?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Kat:<\/strong> Well, the court found that Mr. Clemons lacked a meaningful opportunity to understand or evaluate the arbitration agreement before signing it. According to his declaration, his supervisor routinely handed employees paperwork and expected them to sign it immediately before beginning work. Mr. Clemons stated that there was no explanation regarding what the documents were, whether signing it was voluntary, or whether employees could take additional time to review. He also said that he didn&#8217;t know whether he had a right to refuse to sign. The court found that on those facts, it was significant because the Washington Supreme Court had previously held that undue pressure to sign an arbitration agreement without a reasonable opportunity to consider its terms can render an agreement procedurally unconscionable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> And did Securitas try to rebut the allegations in this case?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Kat:<\/strong> Yeah, the company relied heavily on the declaration from its regional vice president of human resources, who stated that signing arbitration agreements was voluntary, and that employees could opt out if they did not want to participate. According to the declaration, the agreement included opt-out instructions. The problem was, the actual agreement signed by Mr. Clemons did not contain any of those provisions stating that participation was voluntary, nor did it have an opt-out clause. So, the appellate court highlighted this discrepancy and agreed with the trial court&#8217;s conclusion that the declaration was not persuasive on that point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Got it. So, did it come down to a credibility issue for the company?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Kat:<\/strong> Yes, the court observed that Securitas offered evidence describing general policies, but it did not present testimony from anyone who actually participated in the onboarding process or the document signing process involving Mr. Clemons, nor did they provide evidence that his supervisor informed him that he could opt out or take additional time to review the agreement. So, as a result, the employee&#8217;s account of what occurred was largely unrebutted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Got it, understood. So, another interesting aspect of this decision is that the court found circumstantial evidence sufficient. The employee didn&#8217;t specifically remember signing the arbitration agreement, yet the court still credited his testimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Kat:<\/strong>: That&#8217;s right. So, Securitas argued that because Mr. Clemons did not distinctly remember signing the arbitration agreement in 2011, his testimony was speculative, but the court rejected that position. It explained that Mr. Clemons clearly remembered the routine practice of his supervisor when he was presenting paperwork, and that circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence. The court concluded that Mr. Clemons&#8217; description of the workplace practice, combined with the lack of evidence showing that he was informed of any right to opt out, was sufficient to establish procedural unconscionability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Got it. So, despite Washington&#8217;s preference for arbitration, the court ultimately focused on the fairness of the process used to obtain assent from this employee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Kat:<\/strong> That&#8217;s exactly right. The court did not hold that arbitration agreements themselves are unenforceable. It held that employees must be given a meaningful choice. Here, the court found that Mr. Clemons was not informed that the agreement was voluntary, he was not informed that he had a right to opt out, and he was not given a reasonable opportunity to consider the agreement&#8217;s terms before signing. And under those circumstances, the agreement was procedurally unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Got it. So, let&#8217;s now shift to the practical implications. What lessons should employers take away from this decision?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Kat:<\/strong> &nbsp;So, employers should ensure that arbitration agreements expressly state that participation is voluntary, and if there is an option to opt out, that the agreement clearly describes the procedures to opt out. If the company intends to rely on those provisions later, they should be in the actual documents that the employee signs. Employers should also document the onboarding process. It&#8217;s helpful to have acknowledgements indicating that employees received sufficient time to review, had an opportunity to ask questions, and understood the implications of arbitration. Finally, supervisors and managers should be trained carefully. This case became largely about how the documents were presented in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jennifer<\/strong>: And from a wage and hour perspective, this ruling potentially has major consequences because the plaintiff&#8217;s claims now continue in court as a putative class action. So, if arbitration had been enforced, the litigation landscape would&#8217;ve looked very different for this case. Instead, the plaintiff now retains the ability to pursue the class claims in court on behalf of a putative class of Washington hourly non-exempt employees who are alleging unpaid wages, missed meal periods, missed rest breaks, and overtime violations as well. So those are claims that can present some substantial exposure for employers if class certification is granted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Kat:<\/strong> Exactly. This decision serves as a reminder that arbitration agreements remain a powerful risk management tool, but employers cannot treat implementation as an afterthought. Courts are increasingly examining whether employees truly had a meaningful opportunity to understand what it was they were signing. Even a well-drafted agreement can be vulnerable if the execution process is flawed. So, employers should periodically review not only the language of their agreements, but also the procedures used to distribute, explain, and obtain signatures on those agreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Great insights as always, Kat. Thanks so much. So, that wraps up today&#8217;s episode. Thank you to our listeners for joining us today for this discussion of the Washington Court of Appeals decision in <em>Clemons v. Securitas Security Services USA<\/em>. We will continue to monitor developments in wage and hour litigation, class actions, as well as arbitration law, and keep you updated on the latest trends affecting employers nationwide. Thank you so much for listening, and we&#8217;ll see you next time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Kat:<\/strong> Thank you for listening, everyone, and thanks, Jen.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Duane Morris Takeaway: This week\u2019s episode features Duane Morris partner Jennifer Riley and senior Associate Kat Alphonso with their analysis of a ruling from the Washington Court of Appeals affirming a trial court\u2019s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a wage &amp; hour class action. &nbsp; Check out today\u2019s episode and subscribe to &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/09\/11\/the-class-action-weekly-wire-episode-164-washington-appellate-court-affirms-rejection-of-motion-to-compel-arbitration-in-wage-hour-class-action\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;The Class Action Weekly Wire \u2013 Episode 164: Washington Appellate Court Affirms Rejection Of Motion To Compel Arbitration In Wage &amp; Hour Class Action&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[90,2],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-3219","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-action-weekly-wire","category-general"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Defense","first_name":"Class Action","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3219","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3219"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3219\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3221,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3219\/revisions\/3221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3219"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}