Winning nearly $1 million in employment damages is a substantial result. Obtaining that award in mandatory arbitration makes it particularly noteworthy: research has found lower employee win rates and smaller awards in that setting than in employment cases tried in court.
In a reported California employment arbitration, Ms. Lee obtained $932,550 in economic damages, plus $1,114,287.14 in attorneys’ fees and costs, on retaliation and wrongful termination claims against her former employer, Rescue.
The result is striking for two reasons. Lee prevailed in a forum that can present a difficult path for employees seeking substantial recovery. And she won even though the arbitrator rejected her discrimination and harassment claims. An arbitration agreement does not necessarily mean your case is hopeless. And an unsuccessful discrimination claim does not necessarily defeat a retaliation claim.
Why this arbitration victory is particularly impressive
Lee initially filed suit in San Diego Superior Court, but the defendants enforced an arbitration agreement she had signed during her employment. Her claims were therefore decided by a JAMS arbitrator rather than a jury. There is a reality based support for concern about employees’ prospects in mandatory arbitration. In a widely cited study published in 2011, Cornell researcher Alexander Colvin found a 21.4% employee win rate in the AAA employment arbitration cases studied. Among employee victories, the median award was $36,500. Both the win rate and award amounts were lower than the employment trial results used for comparison.
Those historical figures are not current California or JAMS success rates, and differences between the cases reaching each forum limit direct comparisons. They nevertheless help explain why a substantial employee arbitration victory deserves attention.
Against that background, an award of nearly $1 million in economic damages, before attorneys’ fees and costs, is particularly impressive. According to the case summary, the arbitrator did not award emotional distress or punitive damages. The substantial recovery rested on economic losses. For employees, the practical lesson is to evaluate the evidence and potential recovery carefully even when arbitration is required. A difficult forum can still produce a meaningful result.
The employee lost her discrimination claims—but won on retaliation
According to the case summary, Ms. Lee, a Black woman over 40, worked as an agency producer for Rescue. She complained about her supervisor’s treatment and what she believed were unequal opportunities at work.
During a June 2020 Zoom meeting, coworkers discussed wearing black shirts in solidarity with the Black community following George Floyd’s killing. Lee questioned the gesture and discussed her experiences with discrimination. The meeting became contentious after her supervisor made a comment about the note taker recording her remarks. Lee used profanity, and the supervisor ended the meeting. Lee complained to HR about the incident. Approximately 45 days later, Rescue terminated her employment.
The company disputed her side of the story of why she was fired. It cited performance problems, interpersonal difficulties, insubordination, and other concerns. It also maintained that the termination decision had been made months before the Zoom incident and that performance concerns predated her relationship with this supervisor.
After an arbitration hearing, the arbitrator rejected Lee’s discrimination and harassment claims but found Rescue liable for retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The reported award included $932,550 in economic damages and $1,114,287.14 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
Why a retaliation claim can exist and survive with a discrimination claim
A discrimination claim asks whether an employer treated you adversely because of a protected characteristic, such as race, sex, or age. A retaliation claim asks whether the employer punished you for protected activity, such as opposing discrimination. California law can protect an employee who complains based on a reasonable, good-faith belief that unlawful discrimination occurred – even if the employee ultimately cannot prove that it did. The California Supreme Court explained this principle in Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028. There are limits however.
The employer’s side of the story still matters
Being fired after complaining does not, by itself, establish retaliation. For a FEHA retaliation claim, the protected activity must be a substantial motivating reason for the adverse employment action. This is why a useful case evaluation must address the employer’s side of the story. What reason did the company give for firing you? What documents and witnesses will it use to support that explanation? In Lee’s case, the employer relied on alleged problems going back years and claimed it had already decided to terminate her before the June incident. In any similar dispute, the important questions include:
- Were the stated problems documented before the protected complaint?
- When was termination actually discussed, approved, and communicated?
- Did the employer’s explanation change over time?
- Were other employees treated differently for comparable conduct?
- Do emails, messages, or witnesses contradict the stated reason?
A close timeline can support a retaliation claim, but it needs to be evaluated along the rest of the evidence. Likewise, making a complaint does not give an employee blanket protection from legitimate discipline.