Amicus Curiae Brief — Miniso Depot CA, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Yongtong Liu

Supreme Court briefJun 30, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 24-1215

In the Supreme Court of the United

States

MINISO DEPOT CA, INC., ET AL., Petitioners,

YONGTONG LIU, Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE

DISTRICT

BRIEF OF AMICUS

CURIAE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW

COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

PAUL GROSSMAN

SUSANNAH HOWARD

Counsel of record

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &

PAUL HASTING LLP

ROSATI, PC

515 South Flowers

650 Page Mill Road

Street, 25th Floor

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Los Angeles, CA

(650) 493-9300

90071

Susannah.howard@wsgr.com

(213) 683-6203

paulgrossman@paulhasting.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................... ii

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS

CURIAE .............................................................. 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................... 2

ARGUMENT ............................................................. 3

Parties Who Agree to Arbitrate Must Be

Bound by the Terms of Their Agreement. ......... 3

II. The Court of Appeal’s Erroneous Decision

Undermines the Purposes of Arbitration. .......... 5

III. Conflicting Standards Will Encourage

and Reward Forum Shopping............................. 7

IV. Resolution of This Issue is Timely and

Likely Dispositive in This Case. ....................... 8

CONCLUSION ........................................................ 10

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases:

Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc.,

14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023) ....................................... 1

Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California,

4 Cal. 5th 542 (2018) ........................................... 1

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,

563 U.S. 333 (2011) ............................................. 5

Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc.,

2 Cal. 5th 257 (2016) ........................................... 1

Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court,

53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012) ....................................... 2

Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc.,

30 Cal. 4th 303 (203) ........................................... 8

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd,

470 U.S. 213 (1985) ............................................. 6

Ding v. Structure Therapeutics, Inc.,

2024 WL 4609593 (N.D. Cal. 2024) .................... 7

Donohue v. AMN Servs., LLC,

11 Cal. 5th 58 (2021) ........................................... 1

Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court,

4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) ........................................... 1

Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc.,

15 Cal. 5th 582 (2024) ......................................... 1

Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC,

11 Cal. 5th 858 (2021) ......................................... 1

iii

Frlekin v. Apple Inc.,

8 Cal. 5th 1038 (2020) ......................................... 1

Harris v. City of Santa Monica,

56 Cal. 4th 203 (2013) ......................................... 2

Harris v. Superior Court,

53 Cal. 4th 170 (2011) ......................................... 2

Hernandez v. Sohnen Enter., Inc.,

102 Cal. App. 5th 222 (2024) .............................. 4

Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc.,

755 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................. 2

Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines P’ship,

42 Cal. 4th 1158 (2008) ....................................... 2

Kim v. Reins International California, Inc.,

9 Cal. 5th 73 (2020) ............................................. 1

KPMG LLP v. Cocchi,

565 U.S. 18 (2011) ............................................... 8

Liu v. Miniso Depot CA, Inc.,

105 Cal. App. 5th 791 (2024) .............................. 6

Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc.,

2 Cal. 5th 1074 (2017) ......................................... 1

Mera v. SA Hospitality Grp, LCC,

675 F. Supp. 3d 442 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) .................. 7

Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc.,

40 Cal. 4th 1094 (2007) ....................................... 2

Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,

9 Cal. 5th 762 (2020) ........................................... 1

Silverman v. DiscGenics, Inc.,

2023 WL 2480054 (D. Utah 2023) ...................... 7

Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno,

57 Cal. 4th 1109 (2013) ....................................... 5

Southland Corp. v. Keating,

465 U.S. 1 (1984),

overruled on other grounds by

Rodriguez de Quijas v.

Shearson/American Exp., Inc.,

490 U.S. 477 (1989) ............................................. 8

Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds

International Corp.,

559 U.S. 662 (2010) ......................................... 3, 6

Troester v. Starbucks Corp.,

5 Cal. 5th 829 (2018) ........................................... 1

Turner v. Tesla, Inc.

686 F.Supp.3d 917 (N.D. Cal. 2023) ................... 8

Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.,

16 Cal. 5th 664 (2024) ......................................... 1

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc.,

10 Cal. 5th 944 (2021) ......................................... 1

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana,

596 U.S. 639 (2022) ............................................. 1

Voris v. Lampert,

7 Cal. 5th 1141 (2019) ......................................... 1

Yost v. Everrealm, Inc.,

657 F. Supp. 3d 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) .................. 4

Yount v. City of Sacramento,

43 Cal. 4th 885 (2008) ......................................... 8

ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court,

8 Cal. 5th 175 (2019) ........................................... 1

Zeng v. Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP,

2024 WL 4250387 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) ..................... 7

Statutes and Regulations:

AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules R-23 (2009) .... 6

Sup. Ct. R. 10(c) ........................................................ 8

Sup. Ct. R. 37.2 ......................................................... 1

UNCITRAL, Arbitration Rules art. 21(3) (2010) .... 6

Other Authorities:

AAA & ABA,

Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in

Commercial Disputes, Canon VI(B) (2004) ........ 6

Bloomberg News,

Wells Fargo Ends Forced Arbitration

for Sexual Harassment (Feb. 12, 2020),

https://advisorhub.com/wells-fargoends-forced-arbitration-for-sexualharassment/ ......................................................... 5

EEOC Newsroom,

EEOC Files Three Sexual Harassment

Lawsuits, https://www.eeoc.gov/

newsroom/eeoc-files-three-sexualharassment-lawsuits........................................... 9

Martinez,

Facebook, Airbnb and eBay Join Google

in Ending Forced Arbitration for Sexual

Harassment Claims, NBC News

(Nov. 12, 2018),

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/technews/facebook-airbnb-ebay-join-googleending-forced-arbitration-sexualharassment-n935451 .......................................... 5

The Same Result As In Court, More

Efficiently: Comparing Arbitration and

Court Litigation Outcomes,

The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel,

July 2006 ............................................................. 6

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“EEOC”),

Enforcement and Litigation Statistics,

https://www.eeoc.gov/data/enforcementand-litigation-statistics-0 ................................... 9

Wakabayashi,

Google Ends Forced Arbitration for All

Employee Disputes, N.Y. Times

(Feb. 21, 2019),

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/tec

hnology/google-forced-arbitration.html .............. 5

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

OF AMICUS CURIAE1

The California Employment Law Counsel (“CELC”)

is a voluntary, nonprofit organization that promotes

the common interests of employers and the general

public in fostering the development of reasonable, equitable, and progressive employment law in California. CELC’s members include approximately 70 private-sector employers in California that collectively

employ hundreds of thousands of Californians.

The CELC has repeatedly been granted leave to

appear as amicus in important employment cases.2

1 No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in

part, and no person other than amicus, its members, and its

counsel made a financial contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. All parties received timely notice of intent

to file this brief under Rule 37.2.

2 See, e.g., Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 15 Cal. 5th

582 (2024); Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., 16 Cal. 5th 664 (2024); Adolph

v. Uber Techs., Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023); Viking River Cruises,

Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (2022); Donohue v. AMN Servs.,

LLC, 11 Cal. 5th 58 (2021); Kim v. Reins International California,

Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 73 (2020); Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC,

11 Cal. 5th 858 (2021); Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc.,

10 Cal. 5th 944 (2021); Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th

762 (2020); Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 8 Cal. 5th 1038 (2020); Voris v.

Lampert, 7 Cal. 5th 1141 (2019); ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court, 8

Cal. 5th 175 (2019); Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal. 5th 829

(2018); Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th

903 (2018); Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California, 4 Cal.

5th 542 (2018); Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 1074

(2017); Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 257

(2016); Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072

(9th Cir. 2014); Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal. 4th 203

(2013); Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004

(2012); Harris v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 170 (2011); Jones v.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Amicus curiae the CELC submits this brief pursuant to Rule 37 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of

the United States, in support of Miniso Depot CA

Inc.’s (“Miniso’s”) petition for review.

While Miniso makes a highly persuasive case for

review in its petition, amicus writes separately to

highlight, as a practical matter, just how severe a

blow to arbitration agreements the California Court

of Appeal has dealt. Congress had good reason to exempt sexual harassment and sexual assault claims

from arbitration where plaintiffs prefer to litigate

those claims in court. But the Court of Appeal misinterpreted that exemption as applying to all claims—

even those entirely unrelated to sexual harassment or

assault—whenever a plaintiff includes a single exempted allegation in their complaint. That expansive

interpretation will now require courts to exempt from

arbitration, for example, an employee’s claims for failure to pay overtime, rest and meal period violations,

and failure to reimburse business expenses—so long

as the employee includes vague allegations of sexual

harassment. That insupportable rewriting of the statute will lead to absurd consequences as obvious as

they are disruptive: litigants will simply end-run their

arbitration agreements by tacking meritless sexual

harassment allegations onto unrelated claims. Dispute resolution will become slower and more expensive. And such an easy path to evade arbitration will

inspire forum shopping between state and federal

Lodge at Torrey Pines P’ship, 42 Cal. 4th 1158 (2008); Murphy v.

Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 40 Cal. 4th 1094 (2007).

courts—a result the Federal Arbitration Act was specifically designed to avoid.

Absent this Court’s review, those harms will materialize immediately. This Court should not let such

a wholesale revision of settled arbitration principles

go forward without its consideration.

ARGUMENT

The California Court of Appeal’s decision holds

that so long as a complaint contains a single claim relating to a sexual-harassment or sexual-assault dispute, California trial courts must void arbitration

agreements as to all claims in that complaint, even

those having nothing to do with the sexual harassment or assault dispute. The upshot is that plaintiffs

may now exempt an entire case from arbitration—

even when the parties have unambiguously agreed to

arbitrate—by simply tacking a sexual harassment

claim onto a complaint that otherwise has nothing to

do with that allegation. This Court should grant review to correct that erroneous decision, which upends

the FAA’s longstanding protections of parties’ agreements to arbitrate—protections that continue to play

a critical role in encouraging efficient, private, and

cost-effective dispute resolution.

I. Parties Who Agree to Arbitrate Must Be

Bound by the Terms of Their Agreement.

When parties agree to arbitrate disputes, the

terms of their agreements govern. See Stolt-Nielsen

S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662,

682 (2010) (courts must “give effect to the contractual

rights and expectations of the parties”) (internal quotations omitted). Those terms are binding. Hernandez v. Sohnen Enter., Inc., 102 Cal. App. 5th 222, 297,

n.6 (2024) (“an arbitration agreement may only be invalidated for the same reasons as other contracts”)

(internal quotations omitted). Yet by holding that

courts may void arbitration agreements whenever a

plaintiff appends a single sexual harassment claim to

a complaint, the Court of Appeal’s decision points litigants to a backdoor way of avoiding arbitration: add

a sexual harassment claim, regardless of its merit. Indeed, some brazen plaintiffs have already put this

strategy into action, contriving sexual harassment

claims after defendants move to compel. E.g., Yost v.

Everrealm, Inc., 657 F. Supp. 3d 563, 587 (S.D.N.Y.

2023) (“Only after the Everyrealm defendants moved

to compel arbitration based on Yost’s arbitration

agreement . . . did Yost suggest sexual harassment

claims so as to implicate the EFAA.”).

The Court of Appeal’s decision thus threatens to

bury employers—and California courts—in frivolous

allegations engineered to avoid arbitration. That not

only saddles employers with the burdensome task of

defending meritless claims but also renders meaningless parties’ agreements to arbitrate—agreements

that are supposed to be just as binding as any other

contract. See Hernandez, 102 Cal. App. 5th at 297,

n.6. This result is especially perplexing for employers,

including many of amicus’ members, who have expressly carved sexual harassment claims from their

arbitration agreements to ensure the agreements are

enforceable for other disputes.3 The Court of Appeal’s

3 See e.g., Martinez, Facebook, Airbnb and eBay Join Google

in Ending Forced Arbitration for Sexual Harassment Claims,

NBC News (Nov. 12, 2018), https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/technews/facebook-airbnb -ebay-join-google-ending-forced-arbitration-sexual-harassment-n935451; Wakabayashi, Google Ends

decision renders those thoughtful carveouts (which

are consistent with the purpose of the EFAA) useless,

even though they were knowingly agreed to by both

parties to the agreement. This Court’s review is thus

necessary to prevent litigants from circumventing arbitration agreements by using meritless claims, to restore predispute agreements to binding force, and to

guide employers who face uncertainty about the future of those agreements.

II. The Court of Appeal’s Erroneous Decision

Undermines the Purposes of Arbitration.

If left to stand, the Court of Appeal’s decision will

make resolving disputes more expensive and time

consuming for employers and employees alike. Arbitration provides “efficient, streamlined procedures”

and “expeditious results.” Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v.

Moreno, 57 Cal. 4th 1109, 1141 (2013); see AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 348 (2011) (arbitration offers “lower costs, greater efficiency and

speed, and the ability to choose expert adjudicators to

resolve specialized disputes”) (quotations omitted).

Indeed, by one estimate, arbitration resolves disputes

over a year faster than litigation. See The Same Result As In Court, More Efficiently: Comparing Arbitration and Court Litigation Outcomes, The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, July 2006 (median duration

of 4.35 months for arbitration versus 19.4 months for

litigation); see also Stolt-Nielsen S.A., 559 U.S. at 685

Forced Arbitration for All Employee Disputes, N.Y. Times

(Feb. 21, 2019),

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/technology/google-forced-arbitration.html; Bloomberg News, Wells

Fargo Ends Forced Arbitration for Sexual Harassment (Feb. 12,

2020), https://advisorhub.com/wells-fargo-ends-forced-arbitration-for-sexual-harassment/).

(arbitration agreements typically foreclose appellate

review). And unlike ordinary court filings, arbitration

proceedings are usually confidential—which protects

both employers and employees from having to publicly

air their grievances. E.g., AAA & ABA, Code of Ethics

for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes, Canon VI(B)

(2004) (“the arbitrator should keep confidential all

matters relating to the arbitration proceeding”); accord AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules R-23 (2009);

UNCITRAL, Arbitration Rules art. 21(3) (2010). Amicus’ members can attest firsthand to those benefits.

That is why amicus’ members also know the grave

consequences the Court of Appeal’s decision risks.

Now, any time an employee pads their otherwise arbitrable suit with a sexual harassment claim, the bargained-for benefits of arbitration will be lost. Cases

will take more time to resolve, will cost more money,

and will be subject to lengthy appeals.

Those consequences—which amicus’ members use

predispute arbitration agreements to avoid in the first

place—are far worse than whatever inefficiency might

stem from resolving arbitrable and nonarbitrable

claims in different forums. Cf. Liu v. Miniso Depot CA,

Inc., 105 Cal. App. 5th 791, 804 (2024) (warning of

“potential for inefficiency in having separate proceedings in court and an arbitration forum”); but see Dean

Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 217 (1985)

(district courts must “compel arbitration of pendant

arbitrable claims . . . even where the result would be

the possibly inefficient maintenance of separate proceedings in different forums”). In truth, however, it is

not clear that the Court of Appeal’s decision will actually lead to greater efficiency, especially if the sexual

harassment allegations in a complaint are not closely

related to the other, arbitrable allegations. Defendants seeking to dismiss meritless sexual harassment

claims will almost certainly rely on time-consuming

and expensive motion practice to defeat those allegations. If and when those motions are successful, Defendants will then have to move to compel the remaining claims to arbitration—possibly for the second time.

And if the initial motion is not successful, the parties

will have to participate in fact development before

seeking summary judgment—which could very well

end in the same place: dismissal of the sexual harassment claim and then another renewed motion to compel arbitration.

III. Conflicting Standards Will Encourage and

Reward Forum Shopping.

The Court of Appeal’s decision will encourage forum shopping between state and federal courts. Unlike the court below, most federal courts that have

considered this issue have held that the EFAA exempts only claims relating to sexual harassment or

sexual assault. See e.g., Mera v. SA Hospitality Grp,

LCC, 675 F. Supp. 3d 442, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (compelling arbitration of wage-and-hour claims that did

“not relate to the sexual harassment dispute”); Silverman v. DiscGenics, Inc., 2023 WL 2480054, at *3 (D.

Utah 2023) (similar); Zeng v. Ellenoff Grossman &

Schole LLP, 2024 WL 4250387, at p. *3 (S.D.N.Y.

2024) (similar). That is true even within California.

E.g., Ding v. Structure Therapeutics, Inc., 2024 WL

4609593, at *12 (N.D. Cal. 2024) (compelling arbitration of all claims “relate[d]” to “sexual harassment dispute”); Turner v. Tesla, Inc. 686 F.Supp.3d 917, 925

(N.D. Cal. 2023) (similar). In federal court, then,

claim splitting is the norm. See KPMG LLP v. Cocchi,

565 U.S. 18, 22 (2011) (“when a complaint contains

both arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims,” the FAA

contemplates “separate proceedings in different forums”). Indeed, had the Plaintiff here pursued her

claims against Miniso in federal court, the parties

would have resolved just two of those claims in court

and the other 13 in arbitration.

Litigants who are bound by arbitration agreements but want to avoid arbitration thus have a clear

path to do so: tack on a sexual harassment claim and

file in state court. Yet that is exactly the sort of forum

shopping Congress sought to eliminate by making arbitration agreements equally enforceable in federal

and state courts. See Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465

U.S. 1, 15-16 (1984) (FAA applies in state courts to

discourage forum shopping), overruled on other

grounds by Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Exp., Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989); see Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 303, 312 (203)

(“the FAA requires state courts to honor arbitration

agreements”). And it is also the sort of problem that

warrants this Court’s immediate review: the Court of

Appeal’s decision “encourage[s] forum shopping and

create conflicts that only the high court can finally resolve.” Yount v. City of Sacramento, 43 Cal. 4th 885,

904 (2008) (Werdegar, J., concurring); see Sup. Ct. R.

10(c) (Court may grant a petition for a writ of certiorari where “a state court … has decided an important

question of federal law that has not been, but should

be, settled by this Court”).

IV. Resolution of This Issue is Timely and Likely

Dispositive in This Case.

Finally, this case presents a timely and well-suited

opportunity to address the legal question created by

the EFAA. As discussed above, lower courts remain

divided on whether the presence of a single sexual

harassment or sexual assault claim renders an entire

case—including claims unrelated to sexual harassment or assault—non-arbitrable under the EFAA.

This uncertainty is particularly consequential given

the widespread use of arbitration agreements in employment relationships and the marked increase in

sexual harassment claims brought against employers.

See EEOC Newsroom, EEOC Files Three Sexual Harassment

Lawsuits,

https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-files-three-sexual-harassment-lawsuits

(“In fiscal year 2023, the EEOC received more than

7,700 charges of sexual harassment in the nation’s

workplaces, the highest number in 12 years and up

nearly 25% from the previous year.”).

According to annual data published by the EEOC,

sexual harassment charges have steadily increased

since 2022, reflecting a growing trend of such claims

being brought before the courts. See generally, U.S.

Equal

Employment

Opportunity

Commission

(“EEOC”), Enforcement and Litigation Statistics,

https://www.eeoc.gov/data/enforcement-and-litigation-statistics-0. Absent clear and binding guidance

from the Court, plaintiffs may increasingly assert

baseless or defensive sexual harassment claims

against employers in an effort to sidestep binding arbitration agreements. This would not only swell the

volume of claims reaching state and federal courts but

also extend the EFAA well beyond its intended scope.

The EFAA was designed to protect victims of sexual assault and harassment by preserving their right

to seek justice in court – not to provide a universal

escape hatch from arbitration for any plaintiff who

tacks on a thinly supported harassment claim. If the

Court of Appeal’s misreading of the statue is allowed

to stand, courts will become overwhelmed with cases

in which they must distinguish between legitimate

claims and those strategically crafted to evade arbitration. Such an outcome would undermine the

EFAA’s purpose and transform it into a “get out of

contracts” free card – an absurd result this Court

should reject.

The case at hand is especially well-positioned to

resolve this issue, as the extent of the EFAA’s scope

to bar certain claims from arbitration is likely dispositive here. The majority of Plaintiff’s claims do not

arise out of or relate to any alleged sexual harassment.

Rather, in addition to a discrete claim of sexual harassment, the Plaintiff asserts several separate, garden-variety wage-and-hour claims related to her alleged misclassification as an exempt employee and retaliation claims concerning her refusal to participate

in allegedly discriminatory hiring and pay practices.

The trial court did not examine whether each claim

was sufficiently related to the alleged harassment,

and yet compelled all claims to remain in court.

If this Court concludes that the EFAA does not extend to unrelated claims, then the trial court erred in

denying Miniso’s motion to compel arbitration of the

bulk of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court should grant review, clarify the scope of the EFAA, and reverse the

Court of Appeal’s decision.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant

Miniso’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL GROSSMAN

Counsel of Record

PAUL HASTING LLP

515 South Flowers Street,

25th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071