Insight & Commentary on California Workplace Law Issues & Developments
A class action waiver in an arbitration agreement is unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel has ruled. Neal Pataky et al. v. The Brigantine, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00352 (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2017).
Judge Curiel’s decision tracks the Ninth Circuit’s Morris v. Ernst & Young, 834 F.3d 975 (9th …
On September 7, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc. largely overturned the District Court’s ruling which had held Uber’s arbitration agreements to be unenforceable. Last year, the District Court had held that the arbitration agreements were unconscionable due to the inclusion of a waiver of claims brought under…
Denying an employer’s motion to compel individual arbitration of a wage and hour class action, a California federal court ruled that the employer’s dispute resolution program violated its employees’ right to engage in concerted action under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Totten v. Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC. Notably, this ruling departs from the established trend of federal courts declining to follow the precedent set in In re D.R. Horton, Inc. (“Horton I”) and has significant implications for employers contemplating whether to remove a class action involving the enforcement of arbitration agreements to federal court.
Kellogg Brown & Root LLC’s (“KBR”) hired David Totten (“Totten”) in 2012. During his new hire orientation, Totten signed an agreement to participate in KBR’s Dispute Resolution Program (“DRP”) as a condition of his employment. The DRP required employees to arbitrate any claims against KBR that related to, or arose out of, their employment. The DRP also prohibited “KBR, employees and applicants from pursuing claims on a class, collective, or representative basis…” KBR terminated Totten’s employment in June 2014. Approximately one month later, Totten filed a class action against KBR for alleged wage and hour violations and unfair business practices.
Continue Reading Arbitration Agreements
The California Court of Appeal ruled that an automobile dealership that translated a sales contract into Spanish, but neglected to include the arbitration clause in the translated agreement, could not enforce the arbitration agreement. Ramos v. Westlake Services, LLC, A141353. Although the case involved a commercial transaction, it has important implications for employers who use arbitration agreements with employees whose primary language is other than English.
Continue Reading Inaccurate Translation Invalidates Arbitration Agreement
On October 26, 2015, a California Court of Appeal held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not apply to interstate truck drivers, and as a result, it ruled that an employer’s class action waiver was unenforceable as a matter of public policy under the California Gentry rule. Garrido v. Air Liquide Industrial U.S. LP, No. B254490 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2015). This case is significant because it expands the scope of the “transportation worker” exemption under the FAA. Practically, numerous employers who physically distribute their own goods interstate will now be prevented from compelling individual arbitration of class action lawsuits.
Continue Reading Employer Cannot Enforce Class Action Waiver Because Court of Appeal Rules Interstate Truck Drivers Not Subject to FAA
Declining to enforce a representative action waiver contained in an arbitration agreement, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, has held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt California’s “Iskanian rule,” which prohibits waiver of representative claims under the state Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., No. 13-55184 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2015).
The PAGA “authorizes an employee to bring an action for civil penalties on behalf of the state against his or her employer for Labor Code violations committed against the employee and fellow employees, with most of the proceeds of that litigation going to the state.” Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348, 360 (2014). Thus, a PAGA claim is a type of government enforcement action where the representative employee acts as the state’s proxy.Continue Reading California Ban on Waiver of Representative PAGA Claims Not Barred by Federal Arbitration Act, Federal Court Holds
On August 24, 2015, the California Senate passed measure AB-465 which prevents employers from requiring employees to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. The Senate approved this measure by a vote of 22-15. In support of this measure, Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez stated, “No worker should be forced to choose between a job and giving up core labor rights and procedures.”
Continue Reading The California Senate Passes a Bill That May Abolish Arbitration Agreements
An arbitration clause in a consumer agreement was enforceable, including the class action waiver, despite four supposedly one-sided arbitration provisions in the agreement, the California Supreme Court has held. Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC, No. S199119 (Aug. 3, 2015). The much-anticipated decision has significant implications for arbitration agreements between employers and employees.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court: Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Plaintiff’s State Rights
A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of an employer’s motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). This decision is notable because the applicable dispute resolution policy, outlining the terms of arbitration, was contained within the company’s policy manual and detached from the employee’s signed acknowledgment of receipt of the manual. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision on the grounds the language of the employer’s dispute resolution policy, separately outlined within the company’s policy manual, expressly indicated a waiver of the right to a judicial forum for civil rights claims such that the employee “knowingly” agreed to arbitrate his Title VII claim. Michael Ashbey v. Archstone Property Management, Inc., No. 12-55912 (9th Cir., May 12, 2015).
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Finds Plaintiff Knowingly Agreed to Arbitration of Title VII Claims
