Panel Rejects Employee’s Arguments That Six Provisions Are Unconscionable, Requires Severance Of “Judicial Carve-Out” Provision, And Punts On “Reaffirmation Clause” Provision. Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Company, et al., No. 15-55143 (9th Cir. 2/3/17) (Ikuta, Callahan, Bea) is an opinion that employers will likely cite when arguing against employee claims that an arbitration clause is substantively […]
Two Years Later . . . On January 7, 2015, we posted about Montano v. The Wet Seal Retail, Inc., B244107 (2nd Dist. Div. 4 1/13/15) (certified for pub.). This is a Private Attorneys General Act case following the holding in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014), that waiver of the […]
Employer Cannot Compel Employee To Arbitrate Individual Aspects Of PAGA Claim While Maintaining Representative Claim In Court. We blogged about Hernandez v. Ross, E064026 (4/2 1/3/17) on December 8, 2016. Hernandez is one more California case holding that a court cannot split a representative PAGA claim into arbitrable and non arbitrable parts. We can now report […]
Hernandez v. Ross Stores Lines Up With Other California Cases Refusing To Split PAGA Claims Into Arbitrable And Non-Arbitrable Parts. In Hernandez v. Ross Stores, Inc., No. E064026 (4/2 12/7/16) (Miller, Hollenhorst, Slough) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal upholds the trial court’s denial of an employer’s motion to compel arbitration of whether an employee […]
Employer Sought To Distinguish Its Case Based On Specific Language Of Arbitration Clause . . . No Go. Williams v. Superior Court, 237 Cal.App.4th 642 (2015) recognizes that a representative action waiver of a PAGA claim is ineffective because the PAGA claim is not divisible into separate individual and representative claims. Because a representative […]
Unlike The Arbitration Agreement In Iskanian, The Agreement Here Did Not Include A Waiver Of The Right To Bring A PAGA Representative Claim. The Court in Eaton v. Big League Dreams Manteca, LLC, C079374 (Third District 11/2/16) (Renner, Nicholson, Murray) (unpublished) addresses an issue that some may have thought was settled after Iskanian: whether […]
California Courts Have Repeatedly Held That PAGA Claims Are Between Employee Acting On Behalf of State, And Employer, And Therefore Arbitration Cannot Be Compelled By Employer. Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014) held, “[A] PAGA claim lies outside the FAA’s coverage because it is not a dispute between an […]
Takeaway: California Law Precludes Employer From Requiring Employee To Individually Arbitrate “Aggrieved Employee” Status While Preserving Right To Judicial Forum For Other Aspects Of Claim. Perez v. U-Haul Co. of California, B262029 (2/7 8/16/16) (Zelon, Segal, Garnett) shows the ingenuity of an employer who tried to escape the reach of Iskanian v. CLS Transportation […]
How Will This Ultimately Play Out? In Mohamed v. Uber Technologies and Gillette v. Uber Technologies, Nos. 15-16178 and 16181 (9th Cir. 9/7/16), cases in which district court judge Edward M. Chen found arbitration clauses between Uber and its drivers to be unenforceable, the 9th Circuit panel has affirmed in part and reversed in […]
The next three cases show that, notwithstanding the trend to uphold agreements to arbitrate, there are still plenty of situations in which our California Courts of Appeal will agree that arbitration should be denied or stayed, and allow litigation to go forward. Tran v. Integra LifeSciences Corporation, No. G051620 (4th Dist. Div. 3 8/18/16) […]