The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's partial denial of Kelly Services Global's motion to compel arbitration in a case involving claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The decision, filed January 8, 2026, in *Ruiz v. Kelly Services Global, LLC*, marks an important ruling on the scope of arbitrable claims in employment disputes.
The case centers on Raul Ruiz, acting as a representative plaintiff, who brought UCL claims against Kelly Services Global, LLC, a major staffing and workforce solutions company. Kelly Services had sought to compel arbitration of Ruiz's claims, but the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, presided over by Judge Dale A. Drozd, partially denied the motion.
The Ninth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Bumatay, Johnstone, and De Alba, reviewed the district court's decision de novo, which is the standard for arbitrability determinations. Judge Bumatay filed a dissenting opinion, suggesting potential disagreement within the panel about the proper scope of arbitration requirements in this context.
The court's analysis focused on fundamental principles of arbitration law, particularly the delegation of gateway questions to arbitration panels. The opinion notes that while parties may delegate questions of arbitrability to arbitration, there must be "clear and unmistakable" evidence of their intent to do so, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan*.
This legal standard requires courts to examine arbitration agreements carefully to determine whether the parties specifically intended to have arbitrators, rather than judges, decide whether particular claims fall within the scope of arbitration. The "clear and unmistakable" standard is deliberately high, reflecting the general principle that questions of arbitrability are presumptively for courts to decide unless the parties have clearly agreed otherwise.
The case arose from the Eastern District of California and was argued and submitted to the Ninth Circuit on December 9, 2025, in San Francisco. The relatively quick turnaround from argument to decision suggests the court viewed the legal issues as relatively straightforward, despite the presence of a dissenting opinion.
Kelly Services Global operates as one of the nation's largest staffing companies, providing temporary and permanent workforce solutions across various industries. The company's attempt to compel arbitration reflects a common corporate strategy to move employment-related disputes out of federal courts and into private arbitration proceedings, which are generally viewed as more favorable to employers.
California's Unfair Competition Law provides broad protections against unfair business practices and allows for both injunctive relief and restitution. UCL claims are particularly significant because they can be brought as representative actions, potentially affecting large numbers of workers, and because they provide remedies that may not be available under other employment laws.
The Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction to hear the appeal stems from 9 U.S.C. § 16, which provides federal appellate courts with authority to review certain arbitration-related orders. This statutory provision allows for immediate appeals of orders denying motions to compel arbitration, recognizing that such decisions can effectively end the possibility of arbitration in a case.
The court applied established precedent from *Momot v. Mastro* for reviewing arbitrability decisions and *L.K. Comstock & Co., Inc v. United Engineers & Constructors Inc.* for contract interpretation questions. These cases establish that appellate courts review such determinations without deference to the trial court's conclusions, applying fresh legal analysis to the contractual and statutory questions presented.
The memorandum disposition indicates that the court viewed the case as not appropriate for publication, meaning it will not serve as binding precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. However, the decision remains significant for the parties and may influence how similar arbitration disputes are resolved in the future.
Judge Bumatay's dissent suggests there may have been reasonable arguments for a different outcome, though the specific grounds for disagreement are not detailed in the available portion of the opinion. Dissenting opinions in arbitration cases often reflect different interpretations of contractual language or the application of the "clear and unmistakable" standard for delegation clauses.
The affirmance means that Ruiz's UCL claims will proceed in federal district court rather than in arbitration. This outcome allows for potentially broader discovery, public proceedings, and the possibility of class or representative action treatment that might not be available in arbitration.
For employers, the decision reinforces the importance of carefully drafting arbitration clauses if they wish to ensure that all employment-related claims, including those under California's UCL, are subject to arbitration. For workers and their representatives, the ruling preserves access to federal courts for certain types of claims that may be particularly suited to judicial resolution.
The case reflects ongoing tensions between federal arbitration policy, which generally favors arbitration of disputes, and state laws that provide worker protections through judicial proceedings. As employment arbitration continues to evolve, decisions like *Ruiz v. Kelly Services Global* help define the boundaries of what claims must be arbitrated versus those that remain in the court system.