California Court Rejects Blue Origin's One-Sided Arbitration Agreement in Harassment Case

A Follow-Up: In April 2024, we covered Craig Stoker's wrongful termination lawsuit against Blue Origin when he first filed his complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Two years later, that case has produced a significant appellate ruling worth revisiting.

When Craig Stoker raised safety concerns about Blue Origin's rocket engine program, he alleges his complaints were dismissed by colleagues who told him to "man up" — comments he says reflected gender-based bias baked into how his concerns were received. After he was terminated, Stoker sued, and when Blue Origin tried to force his claims into arbitration, a California appeals court ruled the arbitration agreement itself was too one-sided to enforce.

Case: Stoker v. Blue Origin, LLC, et al.

Court: California Courts of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three

Case No.: B344945 (Los Angeles County Superior Court No. 23STCV28816)

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Stoker v. Blue Origin

Craig Stoker worked as senior director of program management on Blue Origin's BE-4 rocket engine program, based out of the company's Woodland Hills, California location, from August 2020 until his termination in October 2022. Stoker alleges he spent months raising safety and workplace concerns internally, and that his complaints were repeatedly brushed off, in part with comments suggesting he should "man up" — remarks he says reflected gender-based dismissiveness toward his concerns rather than a good-faith response to legitimate safety issues. As a condition of his employment, Stoker had signed a broad arbitration agreement covering nearly every category of workplace dispute. After his termination, he sued for retaliation, gender discrimination and harassment, failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination.

Get to Know the Defendant: Stoker v. Blue Origin

Blue Origin, LLC is an aerospace and space exploration company that designs and builds rockets, engines, and spacecraft, including the BE-4 engine program where Stoker worked. Like many employers, Blue Origin required employees to sign broad arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, covering nearly every category of workplace dispute.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

Stoker's lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges a range of employment law violations tied to his termination. According to the complaint:

● Stoker experienced sexual and gender discrimination and harassment during his employment

● He was terminated in retaliation after raising safety concerns

● Blue Origin failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the alleged discrimination and harassment

● His termination violated public policy protecting employees from retaliation

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central legal question was whether Blue Origin's arbitration agreement was enforceable under California law. Blue Origin argued Stoker's allegations were too vague to qualify as sexual harassment under the federal EFAA, while Stoker argued both that the EFAA applied and that the arbitration agreement itself was unconscionable. The Court of Appeal ultimately didn't need to resolve the EFAA question at all; it found the agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable under California contract law, and that the unlawful provisions couldn't simply be severed to save the rest of the agreement.

Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?

This is a California case decided under California law, and it has direct implications for any California worker who has signed a broad employment arbitration agreement.

● The ruling confirms that California courts will strike down arbitration agreements that are too one-sided, even without relying on federal protections like the EFAA

● It signals to California employers that overly broad arbitration clauses covering nearly every type of claim may not hold up in court

● Workers don't necessarily need to prove their claim qualifies for a federal carve-out to challenge an unfair arbitration agreement; California's own unconscionability doctrine can accomplish the same result

● The decision is a reminder that employees should have their arbitration agreements reviewed by an attorney rather than assuming they are automatically enforceable

A Brief Overview of the Case

● August 2020: Craig Stoker is hired by Blue Origin as senior director of program management

● October 2022: Stoker is terminated after allegedly raising safety concerns

● November 2023: Stoker files suit against Blue Origin in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. 23STCV28816)

● Blue Origin moves to compel arbitration: The trial court denies the motion, finding the EFAA applied

● Blue Origin appeals

● April 24, 2026: The Court of Appeal affirms the denial of arbitration, ruling the agreement was unconscionable under California law without reaching the EFAA question

FAQs: Stoker v. Blue Origin

Q: What does it mean for an arbitration agreement to be "unconscionable"?

A: Under California law, an agreement can be found unconscionable if it is both procedurally unfair (such as being presented as a non-negotiable condition of employment) and substantively unfair (such as heavily favoring the employer's interests).

Q: Can an unfair provision just be removed from an arbitration agreement instead of throwing out the whole thing?

A: Sometimes, but not always. In this case, the court found the unfairness was so extensive that severing the problematic parts wouldn't fix the agreement.

Q: Do I have to sign an arbitration agreement to keep my job in California?

A: Employers commonly require arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, but that doesn't mean every such agreement is enforceable under California law.

Q: What is the EFAA, and why didn't the court rely on it here?

A: The EFAA is a federal law letting employees void arbitration agreements for sexual harassment or assault claims. The court in this case didn't need to address it because it found the agreement unenforceable under separate California unconscionability principles.

Q: If I already signed an arbitration agreement, can I still challenge it later?

A: Yes. Arbitration agreements can be challenged in court, particularly if they were presented unfairly or contain one-sided terms.

Q: What should I do if I think my employer's arbitration agreement is unfair?

A: Have the agreement reviewed by an employment attorney before assuming you're bound by it — especially if you're considering filing a harassment, discrimination, or retaliation claim.

Worried Your Arbitration Agreement Isn't Fair?

Stoker v. Blue Origin shows that not every arbitration agreement holds up in court — especially when it's overly one-sided. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.