How have courts interpreted the terms of an employee handbook requiring them to submit all of their claims to arbitration?

Martinez v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1236 is instructive. In that case, plaintiffs litigated their complaint against defendant for wrongful termination through summary judgment. On appeal from the judgment entered in favor of defendant based on the finding that plaintiffs were required by the terms of the employee handbook to submit all of their claims to arbitration, plaintiffs belatedly sought to compel arbitration. (Id. at pp. 1240, 1243, 1249.) The court found that plaintiffs had waived their right to arbitration based on their actions, which were entirely inconsistent with " 'an intent to invoke arbitration.' " (Id. at p. 1250.) The court noted that despite defendant's early demand to arbitrate, plaintiffs expressly refused to arbitrate and proceeded to litigate the matter. (Id. at p. 1251.) In conclusion, the court observed, "Plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate as a matter of law and, while perhaps genuinely regretting this now that they find themselves without any recourse against defendants, have themselves to blame for their predicament." (Ibid.)