Can My California Employer Make Me Sign an Arbitration Agreement?

Direct answer. A California employer cannot make you sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of getting or keeping a job, or of receiving a job benefit, when Labor Code section 432.6 applies and the Federal Arbitration Act does not govern the agreement. In Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc., the Court of Appeal held that "sign it, try to negotiate out of it, or look for other work" violated that statute, so the agreement could not be enforced.

Key takeaways

• Section 432.6 covers FEHA claims and claims under the Labor Code. It bars requiring a waiver of the right to go to court, or to a state agency, as a condition of employment.
• Telling an applicant to accept arbitration or find another job is a condition of employment, even if the form says the signature was voluntary.
• Making the worker negotiate out of the agreement, or take any affirmative step to keep court rights, is also treated as a condition of employment.
• The decision applies when the agreement is not enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court did not decide when that Act overrides section 432.6.
• Molina's wage case was not tried. The court only refused to send it to arbitration.

What Molina was asked to sign

Triumph Residential Services, Inc. is a Los Angeles property-management company. It employed Tiffany Diane Molina from about April 2023 to about September 2024. In November 2024 she filed a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court, case No. 24STCV29642, alleging wage-and-hour violations under the Labor Code and unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200.

Triumph moved to compel arbitration of her individual claims, to dismiss the class claims, and to stay the case. It told the trial court, and the Court of Appeal, that California law applied rather than the Federal Arbitration Act. A vice president declared that Molina received the arbitration agreement with other documents as part of hiring and onboarding. The agreement covered any dispute related to the employment relationship and waived class and representative claims. It also said the parties had a chance to review and negotiate it and that they signed freely and voluntarily.

Triumph's argument for enforcement was that the agreement was voluntary. It said Molina was free to accept it, attempt to negotiate out of it, or look for other employment. The trial court, Judge Carolyn Kuhl, denied the motion. Triumph appealed. On October 22, 2026, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Four, affirmed in a published opinion, Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc., B350252. Read the official opinion.

What the court held

Section 432.6, subdivision (a), says a person shall not, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or any employment-related benefit, require an applicant or employee to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of FEHA or the Labor Code. That includes the right to file a civil action or a complaint with a state agency or court. Subdivision (b) bars retaliation for refusing to sign. Subdivision (c) says an agreement that requires an employee to opt out, or to take any affirmative action to preserve rights, is deemed a condition of employment. Subdivision (f) says nothing in the section is intended to invalidate a written arbitration agreement that is otherwise enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act.

The court put those pieces together. Requiring an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment is illegal under subdivision (a). When that happens, ordinary California contract law makes the resulting agreement unenforceable, because a contract contrary to an express provision of law is not enforced. Subdivision (f) is a limited exception. It saves only agreements that are otherwise enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. The parties agreed this agreement was not. The exception therefore did not apply.

The court was explicit about what it did not decide. It said nothing about the scope of federal preemption. It did not decide when an agreement is "otherwise enforceable" under the Act. It decided only that, once it is established the Act does not make the agreement enforceable, California law will not enforce it if section 432.6(a) was violated.

On the facts, the court did not need to decide which side had the burden of proof. Triumph's own papers showed the violation. The agreement was provided as part of hiring and onboarding. The two options of accepting it or looking for other work are another way of saying employment was conditioned on arbitration. The third option, attempting to negotiate out, required Molina to take affirmative action to avoid the waiver, which subdivision (c) treats as a condition of employment. The court also said that kind of negotiation can mean giving something up, such as pay, in exchange for dropping the agreement, which can violate the anti-retaliation rule in subdivision (b).

The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. Molina was awarded her costs on appeal. That is not a ruling on whether the wage claims succeed.

What this means for you

If a California employer puts an arbitration agreement in a hiring packet, the label "voluntary" is not the whole story. Ask what happens if you do not sign.

1. Keep the packet. Save the agreement, the offer, the handbook acknowledgment, and any message that says signing is part of onboarding.
2. Notice the choice you were given. "Sign, or we will not hire you" is the fact pattern Molina treated as a condition of employment. So is "sign, or go find another job."
3. Notice opt-outs. If you must check a box, send a letter, or negotiate to keep the right to sue, subdivision (c) can treat that requirement as a condition of employment.
4. Do not assume every agreement falls. Many employers argue the Federal Arbitration Act applies. Molina does not answer that argument. Other 2026 decisions, collected in Can your employer force you into arbitration?, look at narrow clauses, one-sided terms, and delay.
5. Harassment cases have a separate federal path. If the dispute includes sexual harassment or sexual assault, see sexual harassment and forced arbitration and why the EFAA has to be raised early.
6. Wage claims have deadlines. Molina was a wage-and-hour class action. Deadlines are on the claim deadline page, and the claims themselves are described on our wage and hour page.

This October decision is also summarized in our October 2026 employment law decisions roundup.

Frequently asked questions

Can my employer require arbitration to hire me?

Not for FEHA or Labor Code claims when section 432.6 applies and the Federal Arbitration Act does not govern the agreement.

Is "sign it or work somewhere else" voluntary?

No. Molina treated that choice as a condition of employment, which section 432.6 forbids for covered claims.

Does Molina cancel every arbitration agreement?

No. It applies when the agreement is not enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court did not decide preemption.

I already signed. Does that end it?

No. Enforcement still depends on whether the agreement was required and which arbitration law governs it.

Can I be punished for refusing to sign?

Section 432.6(b) bars retaliation for refusing to sign a covered agreement. Get advice before you refuse. See our retaliation page.

The information on this website is not legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Talk with Starpoint Law. Call 310-424-9971 or request a free consultation. Starpoint Law is a California-only plaintiff's employment and personal injury firm with offices in Century City and Sherman Oaks. If we don't win, you owe Starpoint Law nothing: no attorney fee and no case costs. How fees work is explained in our employment lawyer cost guide.