Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Hohenshelt: Late Arbitration Fees Do Not Always End Arbitration

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 25, 2026

Hohenshelt v. Superior Court arose after an employer paid substantial arbitration invoices more than thirty days after they were due and the employee sought to return his retaliation and Labor Code claims to court.

The employment dispute had been compelled to arbitration

Dana Hohenshelt alleged retaliation after reporting sexual harassment of a coworker. Golden State Foods obtained an order compelling arbitration, paid the initial deposit, and participated for about a year before two later invoices became overdue.

Section 1281.98 imposes a payment rule

The statute generally requires the drafting party responsible for arbitration costs to pay within thirty days after the due date. A material default can permit the employee or consumer to withdraw from arbitration and proceed in court.

The rule was not inflexible

The Court rejected a construction that automatically extinguished arbitral rights in every late-payment case. Background California contract and relief statutes may excuse nonperformance caused by a good-faith mistake, inadvertence, or other excusable neglect.

The matter was remanded

Section 1281.98, properly construed, was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. The case returned for consideration of whether the employer’s failure was excused and whether the delay caused compensable harm.

Key takeaways

• Calendar arbitration invoices from their stated due dates.
• Do not assume every late payment produces the same remedy.
• Develop evidence bearing on willfulness, gross negligence, mistake, and excusable neglect.
• Document any delay or harm caused by nonpayment.