Stoker v. Blue Origin, LLC

── Stoker v. Blue Origin, LLC ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/24/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CRAIG STOKER, B344945 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23STCV28816) v. BLUE ORIGIN, LLC, et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cherol J. Nellon, Judge. Affirmed. Davis Wright Tremaine, Thailia K. Sundaresan, Emilio G. Gonzalez, and Arielle J. Spinner for Defendants and Appellants. Shegerian & Associates, Carney R. Shegerian, William Reed, Anna Levine-Gronningsater, Justin Shegerian, and Jill McDonnell for Plaintiff and Respondent.  Gutierrez, Preciado & House and Calvin House for Civil Justice Association of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants. ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗ Plaintiff Craig Stoker was employed by defendant Blue Origin, LLC from 2020 to 2022. After he was terminated, Stoker sued Blue Origin and others (collectively, Blue Origin) for a variety of employment claims, including sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). Blue Origin moved to compel arbitration of Stoker’s claims under a contractual arbitration agreement, and Stoker opposed the motion, urging that the complaint alleged a “sexual harassment dispute” within the meaning of the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA; 9 U.S.C. § 402, subd. (a)), and the arbitration provision was substantively and procedurally unconscionable. The trial court concluded that the EFAA applied, and thus Stoker could not be compelled to arbitrate his claims. Blue Origin appealed. We affirm. As we discuss, the arbitration agreement is substantively and procedurally unconscionable, and severance is not appropriate in this case. We therefore affirm the order denying the motion to compel arbitration without considering the applicability of the EFAA to Stoker’s claims. 2  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Stoker’s employment with Blue Origin. Blue Origin is a space exploration company that develops rockets, engines, and spacecraft. It hired Stoker as a senior director of program management in August 2020. When Stoker was hired, he signed an employee agreement governing his relationship with Blue Origin. As relevant here, section 6 of the agreement required arbitration of many disputes that might arise between the parties (the arbitration agreement), and section 7 contained severability and choice-of-law provisions. The issues raised in this appeal pertain to the arbitration agreement, and thus we describe its provisions in some detail. Section 6.1 describes the scope of the agreement to arbitrate, as follows: “I understand and agree that all claims, disputes, or controversies relating to or arising out of my employment with the Company, except for the Excluded Claims listed below, shall be determined by binding arbitration before a single, neutral arbitrator. For purposes of this Arbitration Agreement under Section 6, the term ‘Company’ includes Blue Origin, its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors or assigns, as well as their current and former officers, directors, employees and agents. “This arbitration agreement applies to any and all claims, disputes, or controversies between the Company and me, including, without limitation, claims arising out of or relating to my employment application and/or hiring process, employment with the Company, and/or any termination of my employment, claims for breach of this Agreement or otherwise relating to or arising out of this Agreement, tort claims, breach of contract claims