Sexual Harassment Claims Exempt from Forced Arbitration
The message is clear: Workers who bring sexual harassment claims against their employers cannot be forced to arbitrate those claims and are free to bring them in court where they belong.
Challenging Electronic Signatures in Arbitration Agreements
Many companies now require employees to agree to arbitration of any claims that the employee may have against the employer. They do so for several reasons: (1) Employers want to prevent their employees from bringing class actions; (2) Employers think they are more likely to win in arbitration than before a jury and that if they lose the verdict will be lower; (3) Arbitration is a great way for employers to drag out the process; and (4) Appeals from arbitration decisions are normally limited in scope.
Many such companies now use some kind of electronic on-boarding process. These processes often include an agreement to arbitrate that is so buried in other documents that the employee does not notice it. But some employees are brave enough not to sign the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, it is important to figure out at the outset of a case whether the employee actually signed an arbitration agreement. (more…)
Severing Unconscionable Terms in an Arbitration Agreement: Guidance from the California Supreme Court
Employers use arbitration agreements to try to accomplish two main things: to force employees out of court and into a form that is less favorable to the employees and to prevent employees from bringing class actions. However, employers cannot force employees to comply with arbitration agreements that are unfairly one-sided. Such agreements can be voided if they are both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
On July 15, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Ramirez v. Charter Communications Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 478, clarifying four issues that often arise when plaintiffs are challenging arbitration agreements as unconscionable:
- Whether excluding from arbitration claims that the employer is more likely to bring is unconscionable;
- Whether a shortened limitations periods for filing is unconscionable;
- Whether limitations on discovery such as a limited number of permitted depositions are unsconscionable; and
- Whether arbitration agreements can provide for the potential of an unlawful award of attorney fees.
Hunter Pyle Law Successfully Opposes Motion to Compel Arbitration
In a hard-fought victory, Hunter Pyle Law recently prevailed on opposing an employer’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. Hunter Pyle Law filed a wage and hour class action and representative action pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) on behalf of our client. The complaint seeks relief for nurses who worked throughout the state of California and alleges that the employer committed various wage and hour violations dating back to 2017.
The case was pending for over a year when the employer attempted to compel the case to arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the employee’s offer letter. The Court agreed with Hunter Pyle Law that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, and therefore, unenforceable. If the employer’s Motion to Compel Arbitration was successful, it would have extinguished our client’s class action and PAGA allegations.
Hunter Pyle Law vigorously opposed the employer’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, thereby preserving our client’s class and representative action in court.
If you have faced workplace violations, you can count on the attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law to be your zealous advocates.
Employees Beware: Arbitration Agreements Can Sometimes be Applied Retroactively
Increasingly, employers are asking employees to sign arbitration agreements. If the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable, the employee generally waives the right to sue the employer in court and have the case tried before a jury of his or her peers. Employers typically favor arbitration for a variety of reasons, including privacy, control over arbitrator selection, limited rights to appeal, and the ability to have employees waive the right to bring class action lawsuits.
What happens if an employee has claims against an employer, files a lawsuit and then signs an arbitration agreement? Can that employee still be compelled to arbitrate his or her claims? The Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District recently addressed this issue in Franco v. Greystone Ridge Condominium, et al. The Court of Appeal held that an arbitration agreement that is signed after the employee initiates his lawsuit does not preclude compelling those claims to arbitration. (Franco v. Greystone Ridge Condominium, et al., No. G056559, filed Aug. 14, 2019, certified for publication on Aug. 27, 2019). (more…)
Arbitration and the California Supreme Court: A Glimmer of Hope in Melendez
Corporations in recent years have made great strides in their efforts to hijack the American system of justice and force workers out of court and into mandatory arbitration. Their hope is that arbitration is such a stacked deck (and often it is) that workers will choose not to try to enforce their rights. They also hope that the “repeat player” phenomenon will give them a decisive advantage in terms of the results. Sadly, all too often that is the case.
However, there are signs that some judges are beginning to realize exactly what is going on with mandatory arbitration-and what a travesty it is. (more…)
Recent Arbitration Decisions: Wins for Employees and Employers
A Win for Employees:
In Sprunk v. Prisma LLC, 14 Cal. App. 5th 785 (2017), the court confirmed that an employer’s right to compel arbitration against its employees is not absolute. In a detailed decision from the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal, the court found that an employer had waived the right to compel arbitration. The employer in that case filed a motion to compel arbitration against the individual named plaintiff. Fearing that the trial court would order the parties to arbitrate on a class basis, the employer withdrew its motion to compel. The parties then proceeded to litigate the case for nearly three years. The court granted the employee’s motion for class certification, and soon thereafter the employer made a new motion to compel arbitration against all of the class members who had signed arbitration agreements. The trial judge denied the employer’s motion, finding that it had waived its right to compel arbitration based upon its delay in seeking arbitration of the employee’s individual claims and that the delay was both unreasonable and prejudicial.
Injunctive Relief and Arbitration Agreements in California
What is injunctive relief?
Arbitration agreements cannot ban injunctive relief in California. Many California laws provide for injunctive relief, such as a court order prohibiting the defendant from continuing to engage in the acts of practices that gave rise to the lawsuit.
Injunctive relief is both critical and powerful. In some cases it prevents defendants from getting away with a slap on the wrist. It also allows courts to stop defendants from engaging in illegal conduct now and into the future.
Can arbitration agreements ban injunctive relief in California?
In recent years, however, many companies have implemented arbitration agreements that bar anyone who sues them from seeking injunctive relief. Some of these agreements go so far as to prevent people from seeking injunctive relief in any forum, including court. The California Supreme Court recently reviewed such agreements, and held that provisions in arbitration agreements that waive the right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum are contrary to public policy and unenforceable. This ruling should allow workers who are forced into arbitration to at least be able to pursue their claims for injunctive relief.
One example of injunctive relief is the unfair competition law, Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq, which is referred to as the UCL. In the employment law context, workers sometimes bring claims under the UCL in part because it has a longer statute of limitations (4 years) than many wage and hour laws.
The UCL provides that an injured person can seek an order preventing future conduct:
Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may make such orders or judgments…as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice which constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be necessary to restore any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition. (Bus. & Prof Code, § 17203.)
PAGA and Arbitration: The Growing Conflict between State and Federal Court
In earlier posts, we have explored the question of whether arbitration agreements that are broad enough to include claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code section 2698), or PAGA, should be enforced. As of March 2017 there is a growing split between state and federal courts on this issue. As a result, which court a case winds up in may very well determine how the court rules on this critical question. (more…)
No Arbitration of PAGA Claims
PAGA continues to be an important tool for workers in California seeking to enforce their rights under the Labor Code. Employers continue to try to force PAGA claims into arbitration, where they think that they have a decisive advantage. Yet courts continue to block these efforts. As a result, PAGA claims remain in court where they belong.
The latest case to hold that PAGA claims cannot be arbitrated is Hernandez v. Ross Stores, Inc. (2d DCA Pub. Order 1/3/17) E064026. There, the plaintiff, a warehouse worker, sought to bring a PAGA-only action against the discount store giant for failure to pay wages, failure to properly itemize hours, and failure to pay overtime. Ross attempted to compel Hernandez to arbitrate her individual claims, arguing that its arbitration agreement stated that it applied to “any disputes arising out of or relating to the employment relationship” between Ross and an employee. Ross contended, based upon this language, that before Hernandez could bring a PAGA action, she had to arbitrate the “dispute” over whether she was an aggrieved employee.
Not surprisingly, this too-clever-by-half argument failed. Both the trial court and Division Two of the Second District Court of Appeal held that Hernandez could not be compelled to arbitrate her PAGA claims. The trial court grounded its analysis in the seminal case of Iskanian v. CLS Transportation (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, which held that PAGA actions-whether seeking penalties for one employee or for a group of them-are fundamentally law enforcement actions designed to protect the public. In PAGA cases, there are therefore no individual claims to arbitrate. (more…)