Capili v. The Finish Line, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
116 F.Supp.3d 1000 (2015)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Ritarose Capili (plaintiff) was employed by The Finish Line Inc. (defendant) in 2013 and 2014 as a retail employee in California. Capili had to agree to an arbitration agreement in order to apply to work for Finish Line, and Capili had to sign an arbitration agreement as part of her paperwork before starting to work for Finish Line. Agreeing to the arbitration agreement was a condition to being employed by Finish Line. The arbitration agreement required all claims likely to be asserted by an employee to be submitted to arbitration, including wage and hour claims, discrimination claims, and other allegations of violations of federal and state law. However, claims likely to be asserted by Finish Line, including claims for injunctive relief related to unfair competition or disclosure of confidential information, could be brought in court. The arbitration agreement also required all claims to be filed in Indiana and required the employee to pay for half of the cost of the arbitration. Capili sued Finish Line in federal court, alleging that Finish Line terminated Capili because of her pregnancy and other medical conditions. Finish Line filed a motion requesting that Capili be compelled to arbitrate these claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gilliam, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
