A former Nordstrom technology employee who sued the retail chain, alleging she was discriminated against by a misogynistic manager and was wrongfully fired in 2023 in retaliation for taking time off to deal with a back injury, will have to take her claims before an arbitrator rather than a jury, a judge has ruled.
Jacqueline Stephens’ Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit allegations include wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Judge Randolph M. Hammock heard arguments on Feb. 26 on a defense motion to compel arbitration, took the issues under submission and granted the motion on Wednesday.
The judge also stayed the case pending the arbitration outcome. A status conference is scheduled for March 4, 2026.
In their court papers, Nordstrom attorneys argued that Stephens was bound by a dispute resolution agreement in which she agreed to arbitrate any work disputes.
“There is no dispute that all of plaintiff’s purported causes of action arise out of her employment with Nordstrom and, as such, are subject to the DRA,” the store’s lawyers maintained in their filing.
In a sworn declaration, Stephens contended the arbitration agreement was unfair.
“I was never given the opportunity to negotiate the terms of defendants’ arbitration agreement or dispute resolution agreement,” the plaintiff said.
Stephens was hired as an IT technician in January 2019. Three years later, Nordstrom approved an intermittent leave for her to deal with a back injury that affected her ability to bend and do manual tasks, according to the suit. She was allowed to take a full medical leave in March 2022 for surgery and her doctors approved her return to work the next month, the suit brought Sept. 20 states.
Stephens told her manager in an email that the plaintiff’s doctor wanted her to have a desk that would allow her to sit and stand at different times, but it took more than a month for the desk to be acquired, the suit alleges.
Shortly after Stephens returned from leave, the manager gave her a quarterly job performance review that was critical of her absences, which the plaintiff believes was in retaliation for her taking medical time off, the suit states. Stephens complained to human resources about the manager’s negative review, the suit further states.
As the only permanent full-time female on her team, Stephens often heard the manager make insulting remarks about women being unintelligent and overly emotional, the suit states.
“This sent a message to Stephens that (the manager) viewed women as second-class citizens in the workplace,” according to the suit, which further alleges that her male colleagues were more favorably treated by the manager, who she says rarely recognized her for her hard work.
The manager gave Stephens another poor performance review in March 2023 for taking more leave time to deal with her back injury and told her she should make sure her medical appointments did not interfere too much with her work schedule “or her job would be at risk,” the suit states.
Stephens again complained to human resources about the second bad job evaluation and was told in April 2023 that an investigation took place and concluded with the decision to reprimand the manager, the suit states.
Although Stephens was told she would not suffer a backlash for speaking out, she was fired the next day, according to the suit.