A California appeals court backed a trial court's refusal to force arbitration of a former SpaceX employee's suit claiming her boss forced her into a sexual relationship in exchange for career advancement, finding her claims were protected by a law barring mandatory out-of-court resolution for sex misconduct cases.

A three-judge panel unanimously affirmed Tuesday an opinion rejecting Space Exploration Technologies Corp.'s motion to compel arbitration in Michelle Dopak's suit claiming she faced sex bias, retaliation and harassment in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The panel said the lower court correctly found the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act shielded Dopak from arbitration, while rejecting contentions from SpaceX that she improperly amended her complaint in order to fall under the law's protections. She merely added additional context to show the harassment she faced continued past the law's March 3, 2022, enactment date, the panel said.

"Allegations that acknowledge a temporary break in certain harassing behavior are wholly consistent with asserting a resumption or continuation of misconduct thereafter," the panel said.

Dopak said in her March 2024 suit that she was looked over for promotions in the company and that leaders failed to shut down comments from male colleagues that Dopak and other women got their jobs because of their looks. About six months after she began working under a new supervisor, when the two were carpooling to a rocket launch, he grabbed her waist and began kissing her without consent, she said.

Her supervisor made clear that she would have to submit to his sexual advances if she wanted the promotion she sought, according to Dopak's suit. She said she was forced into a sexual relationship with him for two years until her employment ended with the company in 2022. Dopak also said she became pregnant with the supervisor's child in 2020 and claimed he attempted to pay her $100,000 to terminate the pregnancy, which she refused.

In its bid to compel arbitration in Dopak's suit, SpaceX said she is still bound by a pact she signed when she was hired by the company because the events that inform her allegations occurred years before the EFAA was enacted in March 2022. But Dopak subsequently amended her complaint to specify that her employment ended in June 2022, and said her supervisor forced her to repeatedly have unprotected sex with him from March 7 to March 11, 2022, and threatened her career.

The trial court found that Dopak's claims escaped arbitration because they accrued after the EFAA's enactment under the continuing violation doctrine.

SpaceX argued on appeal that the trial court hinged its ruling on a sham pleading, arguing that Dopak's amended complaint contradicts her suit's original allegations and can't be considered by the court. While SpaceX argued that Dopak said in her original complaint that the sexual relationship ended in 2020, the panel said this isn't the case, adding that the additional details she provided in the suit are not inconsistent with any of her original allegations.

While SpaceX also said the trial court should have required Dopak to arbitrate claims that didn't involve sexual misconduct — such as her equal pay and emotional distress claims — the panel rejected this argument. California courts have made clear that when a worker alleges one claim covered by the EFAA, the rest of their allegations also can't be pushed into arbitration, the panel said.

Daniel G. Valles, who represents Dopak, told Law360 he sees the ruling as a victory for all victims of workplace sexual harassment.

"It also prevents companies, like SpaceX, from silencing these victims and forcing them into an arbitration system that severely favors the private companies over the victims and allows the companies to keep these matters from the public eye," Valles said.

Representatives of SpaceX did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Dopak is represented by Daniel G. Valles of Valles Law.

SpaceX is represented by Melinda Shena Riechert, Rachel L. Capler and Alexandria Rae Elliott of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Dopak v. SpaceX, case number B342000, in the California Court of Appeals for the Second District.