Give a brief summary to this case

Susana Macias ("Macias") began working for Excel Building Services ("Excel") in approximately December 2004. Comp. 14, Doc. 1. She was initially employed as a janitor and later promoted to janitorial supervisor. Id. at 18. After her promotion, Macias alleges that she still performed basic janitorial duties in addition to her supervisory duties. Id. Macias claims that she was often expected to work overtime but was not paid any extra wages. Id. at 17.

In approximately May 2009, Macias became pregnant. Id. at 25. She was hospitalized due to pregnancy-related health issues in August 2009. Id. at 26. When Macias was released from the hospital, the doctors recommended that she take a three-week break from work, minimize heavy lifting and take more frequent breaks. Id. at 26-27. Macias alleges that Mr. Ramos, her supervisor at Excel, was unwilling to grant her the requested leave or adjust her work load. Id. During Macias' final trimester, she alleges that she once again asked that her assignments be modified to accommodate her pregnancy (e.g. that she not be required to do heavy lifting, or work with harsh chemicals) and that she was once again denied, this time by Feliza Guerrero, Excel's Human Resources Manager. Id. at 29.

Macias claims that on December 29, 2009, she met with Guerrero to request maternity and bonding leave. Id. at 33. She alleges that the two created a written agreement indicating that Macias would be on full-time leave between January 31, 2010 and March 15, 2010, then work part-time between March 15, 2010 and May 1, 2010, and resume full-time work on May 2, 2010. Id. Macias began her maternity leave as scheduled, on January 31, 2010, and gave birth on February 9, 2010. Id. at 34. Macias alleges that on March 12, 2010, she contacted Guerrero to confirm that she would return to work part-time on March 15. Id. at 35. Macias claims that she was told that she would have to meet with Jack Fabrique, the head of the company, in Pleasanton before returning to work. Id. Macias alleges that the meeting was repeatedly rescheduled and did not take place until March 31, 2010. Id. at 36-37. At that meeting, Macias claims that Fabrique terminated her employment, stating something to the effect of "women do not work as well after having a baby." Id. at 38-39. Macias, who claims to speak only Spanish, alleges that Guerrero acted as her translator at this meeting. Id. at 37. Macias alleges that after she was terminated, Fabrique and Guerrero offered her papers written in English and told her that if she would sign the papers, which included a waiver of Macias right to sue Excel, she would be given $2,000. Id. at 40. Macias states that she requested a copy of the papers so that she could have someone help her read them before deciding but was refused. Id. Macias declined to sign the papers. Id.

[767 F.Supp.2d 1006] On September 16, 2010, Macias filed suit against Excel, requesting a jury trial and claiming that Excel had violated Title VII, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California Business and Professions Code. Id. at 44. On November 15, 2010, Excel responded by filing a motion to compel arbitration, or in the alternative, to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Def. Excel Bldg. Services, LLC's Notice of Mot. and Mot. to Compel Arb. and Dismiss Compl. or, in the Alternative, to Stay Action Pending Arb. ("Mot. to Compel"), Doc. 6. Excel alleges that the company and Macias entered into a binding Arbitration Agreement ("Agreement") that governs any and all disputes arising from Macias' employment with and termination from Excel. Id. at 1.