On October 27, 2026, a King County Superior Court judge denied a motion to compel arbitration filed by a group of affiliated Washington skilled nursing and care facilities in a wage and hour class action brought by Crosner Legal. The employer had asked the court to force two of the four named plaintiffs into individual arbitration, stay the entire case, and dismiss the class claims. The court denied the motion in its entirety.
Background
The plaintiffs, current and former facility employees, allege that the employer allegedly failed to provide compliant meal and rest breaks and allegedly failed to pay all wages owed to hourly staff across its Washington locations. The employer denies the allegations.
After the lawsuit was filed, the employer moved to compel arbitration against two plaintiffs, relying on electronically signed arbitration agreements. One plaintiff’s purported signature was dated after the lawsuit had already been filed. Both plaintiffs submitted declarations stating they never electronically signed any employment documents and had no access to the web-based system the employer said they used. Timekeeping records showed both were clocked out at the moments the agreements were supposedly signed.
What the Court Decided
- Formation is for the court, not an arbitrator. Even where an agreement contains a delegation clause, a court must decide whether the parties ever agreed to arbitrate at all. Because the plaintiffs disputed that they signed anything, the court had to resolve that question itself.
- The plaintiffs’ denials were more than “bare denials.” Supported by the clocked-out timekeeping records and lack of system access, the declarations created a genuine factual dispute about whether any agreement was formed, which defeated the motion.
- Agreements rolled out after a class action is filed are unenforceable against the class. The employer required employees to sign as a condition of continued employment, did not tell them a class action covering their claims was already pending, and offered no opt-out. The court found this procedurally unconscionable and unenforceable as to every putative class member presented with the agreement after the case was filed, citing the Ninth Circuit’s January 2026 decision in Avery v. TEKsystems and similar rulings from the Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits.
- No stay, no dismissal. With no valid agreement as to the other plaintiffs, there was no basis to stay the case or dismiss the class claims.
Why It Matters
Employers facing a wage and hour class action sometimes respond by rolling out arbitration agreements with class waivers to the very workers the lawsuit covers, hoping to shrink the class before it is certified. This order confirms Washington courts will not reward that tactic. An employer that wants to use mid-litigation agreements must, at minimum, disclose the pending case and give employees a real choice to opt out. It also confirms that an employer cannot bootstrap a disputed e-signature into arbitration: if a worker credibly says she never signed, the court decides, and the employer has to prove it.
If you were asked to sign an arbitration agreement at work and later learned a class action against your employer was already pending, that agreement may not be enforceable against you.
Talk to a Washington Wage and Hour Attorney
Crosner Legal represents employees in wage and hour class actions across Washington, Oregon, California, and Illinois. If you believe you were denied meal or rest breaks or not paid all wages owed, or were pressured to sign an arbitration agreement during a pending lawsuit, contact us at (866) 276-7637 or through our website for a free and confidential case evaluation.
This post is attorney advertising and is provided for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The allegations described are allegations only; the defendants deny them, and the order addresses arbitration, not the merits. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.