Black PIMCO Lawyer’s Race, Sex Bias Gripe Properly Kept in Court

The arbitration provision in Pacific Investment Management Co.'s long-term cash bonus plan for highly paid workers applies only to unpaid benefits under the plan and doesn’t bar a Black female attorney from pursuing her race, sex, and pregnancy bias claims in court, the California Court of Appeal ruled.

Andrea Martin Inokon joined PIMCO as a vice president in 2011 and by 2016 was earning enough to be eligible to participate in the company’s LTIPA, which enables highly compensated employees to defer a percentage of their pay for a three-year period and later receive a bonus of as much as 135% above their wage contributions to the plan, the court said. Inokon elected to participate in 2016, 2017, and 2018, it said.

In 2019 she sued PIMCO, a related company, and two managers under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. She was passed over for promotions and paid less than comparable workers because of her race, sex, and pregnancies, according to Inokon.

The defendants sought to compel her to arbitrate but a lower court properly found Inokon can sue in court, Justice Thomas M. Goethals said Nov. 12.

The LTIPA arbitration pact clearly states that it only applies when a plan participant alleges the denial of a benefit under the plan, he said.

Inokon doesn’t claim she was denied a benefit or award under the LTIPA, Goethals said.

She also isn’t “otherwise attempting to enforce the LTIPA’s payment provisions” and concedes she was paid everything PIMCO owed her under the plan, the judge said.

Her suit claims promotion denials and pay inequities and doesn’t arise under the LTIPA, the court said. The plan’s arbitration provision therefore wasn’t triggered.

That the arbitration clause included the phrase “arising out of or relating to” didn’t mean it was broad enough to encompass Inokon’s FEHA claims, Goethals said.

The arbitration language is narrow and doesn’t reach Inokon’s pay bias claims despite PIMCO’s contention that those claims, like her LTIPA benefits, go to her total compensation, the court said.

“The language speaks for itself” and didn’t bind Inokon to arbitration of any and all claims relating to her employment, Goethals said.

Justices Richard D. Fybel and visiting Judge Linda S. Marks of the California Superior Court joined the opinion.

Abrolat Law PC and Esner, Chang & Boyer represented Inokon. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP represented the defendants.

The case is Inokon v. Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co., 2021 BL 435110, Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., No. G058986, unpublished 11/12/21.