Cameron v. Balfour Beatty Construction CA2/6

── Cameron v. Balfour Beatty Construction CA2/6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/12/26 Cameron v. Balfour Beatty Construction CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. ORDER MODIFYING BALFOUR BEATTY OPINION AND DENYING CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., PETITION FOR REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN Defendants and Appellants. JUDGMENT] THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 15, 2026, be modified as follows: On page 14, first full paragraph, after the first sentence, “We find Casey, Doe, Liu, and Quilala persuasive and adopt their reasoning,” insert footnote 1 stating: 1. We reject appellants’ claim that statements by “Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) – the [EFAA’s] lead sponsor –” and two other senators show that “[t]he EFAA is solely meant to exempt sexual harassment and sexual assault claims from arbitration, not entire lawsuits.” “ ‘The best evidence of [legislative] purpose is the statutory text adopted by both Houses of Congress and submitted to the President. Where that contains a phrase that is unambiguous—that has a clearly accepted meaning in both legislative and judicial practice—we do not permit it to be expanded or contracted by the statements of individual legislators or committees during the course of the enactment process.’ ” (Huff v. DeKalb County, Ga. (11th Cir. 2008) 516 F.3d 1273, 1280, quoting from West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey (1991) 499 U.S. 83, 98-99, superseded on other grounds by statute as recognized in Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994) 511 U.S. 244, 251.) Appellants’ petition for rehearing is denied. There is no change in judgment. YEGAN, A.P.J. BALTODANO, J. CODY, J. 2 Filed 4/15/26 Cameron v. Balfour Beatty Construction CA2/6 (unmodified opinion) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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. R