Cameron v. Balfour Beatty Construction CA2/6

── Cameron v. Balfour Beatty Construction CA2/6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/15/26 Cameron v. Balfour Beatty Construction CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX MELINA CAMERON, 2d Civ. No. B341877 (Super. Ct. No. Plaintiff and Respondent, 2024CUOE026155) (Ventura County) v. BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Defendants and Appellants. Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC (Balfour), and two of its employees appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion to compel arbitration of respondent Melina Cameron’s complaint alleging one cause of action for sexual harassment and nine other causes of action. Respondent was Balfour’s former employee. Before she began work, she signed an agreement requiring the arbitration of disputes relating to her employment. The trial court concluded that none of the complaint’s 10 causes of action was subject to compulsory arbitration pursuant to the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA). (9 U.S.C. §§ 401–402.) “In general terms, the EFAA renders arbitration agreements unenforceable at the plaintiff's election in sexual assault and sexual harassment cases that arise or accrue on or after March 3, 2022, the EFAA's effective date.” (Doe v. Second Street Corp. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 552, 559 (Doe).) Appellants contend the EFAA is inapplicable because respondent failed to adequately state a claim for sexual harassment. If the EFAA applies to the cause of action for sexual harassment, appellants argue that the trial court erroneously denied their motion to compel arbitration as to the other nine causes of action. We affirm. Respondent’s Complaint Respondent’s complaint alleged: respondent is an African- American woman. In January 2022 she was hired by Balfour “as an assistant superintendent of a large construction project.” “During her employment . . . , [she] was subjected to horrific racial, gender, and sexual harassment[,] . . . racial and gender discrimination[,] . . . and apparent workplace violence . . . . She engaged in protected activity by making protected complaints and was ultimately terminated in retaliation for the same.” The complaint consisted of 10 causes of action: (1) hostile work environment sexual harassment under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.); (2) hostile work environment gender harassment under the FEHA; (3) hostile work environment race harassment under the FEHA; (4) gender discrimination under the FEHA; (5) race discrimination under the FEHA; (6) retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the FEHA; (7) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under the FEHA; (8) 2 whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b); (9) violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 (Civ. Code, § 51.7); and (10) violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (id., § 52.1). The first cause of action for sexual harassment was against Balfour and its Assistant Senior Superintendent, Joe Wandolowski, who was respondent’s direct supervisor. The first cause of action alleged: on May 1, 2023, a safety supervisor advised Wandolowski “that there was ‘extremely offensive graffiti’ in the temporary toilets on the site