Worked Only in California? Read the FAA Choice Clause Before Challenging Arbitration

Working entirely in California does not, by itself, answer whether the Federal Arbitration Act governs an employment arbitration agreement. The agreement’s choice-of-law language can matter independently of evidence about the employer’s interstate business. In Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Administrative Services, LLC, the California Court of Appeal enforced an express FAA choice and did not reach the employer’s alternative interstate-commerce argument.

Current status: On March 25, 2026, the California Supreme Court granted review in Tuufuli, No. S295323, and deferred action pending related issues in Barbosa v. Sierra Pacific Orthopaedic Center Medical Group, No. S294710. The current docket lists Tuufuli as held for that lead case. The Court of Appeal opinion remains published but is not binding. Rule 8.1115 permits potentially persuasive citation and the limited conflict-of-authority use described in its comment, subject to Supreme Court orders. This article explains the January 13 reasoning while that review remains pending. See the March 25 order, page 353, and the official opinion entry.

If you are comparing an arbitration demand with an agreement you signed years earlier, start with the actual governing-law clause. Then keep three questions separate: what law the parties selected, whether a statutory exclusion applies, and what other objections exist to enforcing the agreement. A favorable answer to one does not supply the answers to the others.

Find the language that selects the governing arbitration law

An agreement may refer to the FAA, California arbitration law, or both. Read the complete provision rather than searching for one acronym. A California-law fallback may operate only when federal law cannot apply; another clause may select California law for substantive employment claims while treating arbitration procedure differently. Those are different choices.

Tuufuli worked as a collector and customer-service representative for a company managing California dental practices. Her agreement selected the FAA and called for California law to the extent the FAA permitted it. The employee argued that her own work was exclusively within California. The court treated the express contractual selection as a separate reason to apply the FAA. Its reasoning did not depend on deciding whether the employer’s declarations established the required interstate connection. Published January 13, 2026 opinion, pages 6–9.

For your own agreement, preserve the signed document, incorporated rules and any amendment. A current handbook may contain different wording from the document that governed when you accepted the arbitration provision. If the employer relies on an electronic acknowledgment, identify what document the acknowledgment actually covered and whether the disputed clause was part of it.

Do not confuse a choice clause with a transportation-worker exclusion

The FAA’s transportation-worker exclusion raises a different question. Tuufuli distinguished that express statutory exclusion from the employee’s argument about the commerce language in the FAA’s enforcement provision. The opinion explains that parties cannot use a contractual election to override the statutory exclusion. Pages 8–9.

That distinction matters when a job involves transporting goods or passengers. The employee’s actual work must be examined under the applicable exclusion cases. A general statement that the company operates across state lines does not describe the employee’s duties. Conversely, a statement that the employee never crossed a state line does not finish every FAA inquiry.

Gather a concrete description of the work: what moved, where it came from, where it went, and what part the employee performed. Job titles and broad descriptions of the company can obscure those facts. The discussion of New Prime addresses the separate statutory-exclusion question; confirm the current application of that framework to the actual job before relying on it.

Keep agreement formation and other enforcement objections in view

The employee’s appeal in Tuufuli presented the governing-law issue. That limited appellate question should not become an assumption that every arbitration agreement selecting the FAA is enforceable. A dispute over assent, the scope of covered claims or an allegedly unfair provision requires its own analysis.

Write down the objection precisely. “I worked in California” addresses one factual point. “I never received the agreement the employer identifies” addresses formation. “This clause does not cover this dispute” addresses scope. Treating all three as a general objection to arbitration makes it harder to connect the evidence to the legal question.

Likewise, a dispute about individual arbitration and a dispute about class proceedings are not interchangeable. Save any class-action waiver and the surrounding language. The employer’s request and the court’s order should show exactly what happens to each claim, rather than leaving the employee to infer that every claim has been dismissed.

Ask what the court actually decided

A ruling compelling arbitration may contain several independent grounds. On appeal, the issues actually challenged and the ground the appellate court uses determine the reach of the decision. In Tuufuli, the court affirmed based on the parties’ express choice and left the employer’s alternative proof of interstate commerce unresolved. That was a stated boundary of the decision, not a finding that the employer lacked interstate activity. Page 9.

When reviewing an order, compare the motion, opposition, ruling and any appeal. Identify which objection was preserved, which facts were disputed and whether the court decided an issue or found it unnecessary to reach. That comparison gives counsel a usable question instead of a broad request to “get out of arbitration.”

Bring the agreement and a short work history

A useful consultation packet includes the agreement and incorporated rules, the arbitration demand or motion, the court’s order if one exists, and a short account of the employee’s duties. Add the dates the documents were received or signed and the dates of any pending hearing or response.

For an employee whose work involved transportation, describe the actual movement of goods or passengers. For a dispute about electronic assent, preserve the acknowledgment and the document attached to it. For a governing-law dispute, mark the FAA clause, any California-law provision and the fallback language together.

Mishra X Trial Lawyers can review those documents and help identify the next question to address. A consultation does not itself extend a court deadline or complete an arbitration response.