Holding The Line on Employment Arbitration: What Employers Need to Know After Ding, Bruce & Rickes

Eric M. Fox, Shareholder | Ogletree Deakins

Eric M. Fox is a Shareholder in the San Diego office of Ogletree Deakins and one of the foremost authorities on employment arbitration in California. His practice sits at the center of the issues this program addresses — enforcing arbitration agreements, litigating motions to compel, and navigating the EFAA, electronic assent, waiver, and fee-payment battlegrounds reshaped by Ding, Bruce, Rickes, Quach, and Hohenshelt. A seasoned litigator and trusted advisor, he defends employers across industries in class action litigation — including wage and hour and PAGA claims — as well as discrimination, harassment, and FEHA claims, Title VII allegations, and FMLA and CFRA matters, giving him a rare end-to-end command of both the agreements employers rely on and the litigation that tests them.

• Education & Credentials

Eric M. Fox earned his J.D. from the University of Southern California – Gould School of Law in 2010 and his B.A. from the University of California – Davis in 2007. He is admitted to practice in California, as well as before the U.S. District Courts for the Central and Southern Districts of California and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

• Recognition & Leadership

Eric is a nationally sought-after speaker and moderator on labor and employment law, and the voice practitioners turn to when the arbitration landscape shifts. He presents regularly on recent developments in labor and employment law and arbitration agreements, his analysis has been published in Law360, Lexis, and the Association of Corporate Counsel Southern California Journal, and Law360 has quoted him as an authority on significant developments in wage-and-hour litigation and arbitration.

• Professional Involvement

Few practitioners have written more extensively — or more presciently — on the exact issues this program covers. Mr. Fox has tracked every major front in employment arbitration as it developed, with publications on Law360 and other national outlets including “SCOTUS Settles Federal Jurisdiction Question When Claims Are Stayed Under the FAA,” “Sixth Circuit Finds Sexual Harassment Claim Can Bar Entire Case From Arbitration,” “Emerging Trends in Employment Arbitration in 2026: What Employers Need to Know,” “Second Circuit Refuses to Compel Arbitration in Fees Row,” and “California Supreme Court Rules FAA Does Not Preempt Arbitration Fee Deadline, Rejects Strict Penalties,” as well as “What a California Mileage Tax Would Mean for Employers.” His body of work maps directly onto the EFAA, FAA-preemption, and fee-deadline questions at the heart of this course.

• Experience

Mr. Fox brings battle-tested, front-line experience to every stage of the arbitration fight. He defends employers in class action litigation, including wage and hour and PAGA claims, and in discrimination, harassment, and FEHA matters, Title VII allegations, and FMLA and CFRA claims — the very disputes in which arbitration agreements are made or broken. He represents employers in administrative hearings, California Labor Commissioner proceedings, and Department of Industrial Relations hearings, and he pairs his courtroom work with compliance counseling on California and federal employment law, advice on employee matters and cannabis law, and the drafting of employment policies and arbitration programs built to withstand challenge. Attendees will hear directly from the practitioner employers call first when arbitration enforceability is on the line.

SESSION 1 – EFAA After Ding & Bruce: When Sexual Harassment Claims Take an Entire Case Out of Arbitration | 2:30pm – 3:30pm

This session examines the rapidly evolving EFAA landscape following Ding v. Structure Therapeutics and Bruce v. Adams & Reese. Attorneys will analyze when a sexual harassment allegation can invalidate arbitration for an entire case, how courts are approaching the distinction between a “case” and individual “claims,” and whether a plaintiff can invoke the EFAA after arbitration has already begun. The session will provide practical strategies for employers evaluating EFAA exposure, challenging insufficient allegations, preserving arbitration of non-EFAA claims, and drafting severability provisions.

BREAK | 3:30pm – 3:40pm

SESSION 2 – Proving the Right to Arbitrate: Assent, Waiver & Fee-Payment Traps After Rickes and Hohenshelt | 3:40pm – 4:40pm

This session addresses the threshold issues employers must establish before a court will compel employment arbitration: formation of an enforceable agreement, preservation of the right to arbitrate, and compliance with arbitration fee obligations. Using Rickes v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Quach v. California Commerce Club, and Hohenshelt v. Superior Court as key developments, attorneys will examine electronic onboarding and email-based arbitration rollouts, litigation conduct that can create waiver, and California’s arbitration-fee deadlines. The session will conclude with practical strategies for auditing existing agreements and improving arbitration administration.