California Arbitration Agreement Unconscionable

In addition, the tribunal found that the arbitration agreement was unscrupulous on the merits. First, the agreement required the employee to submit all disputes to an arbitration panel in New York under New York law and, as a result, according to the court, Ajamian was forced to waive her non-negligible legal rights. Second, the employer, but not the worker, had the right to choose the organization of conciliation. Third, the worker must waive his rights to special, exemplary and statutory damages, while the employer was entitled to lump sum damages. Fourth, Ajamian could be held liable for the employer`s attorneys` fees if, under California law, it did not have such an obligation. But in the substantive scruples, the California High Court has departed from the analyses of the lower courts. Although the court found that the parties` arbitration agreement might be appropriate in the case of an unlawful termination in which no Berman proceedings are available, it found that the arbitration agreement relating to the worker`s remuneration was essentially unscrupulous, given that the arbitration procedure was less accessible and less affordable than the state`s judicial procedure. In particular, the arbitration agreement has sought to grant rights similar to those permitted in traditional disputes (characteristics of agreements understandable by previous case law), including the obligation for a retired judge of a public court to act as an arbitrator and the availability of all means of investigation and movement provided by the State. However, the Tribunal found that these same provisions made the process more complex and lengthy and contrasted little with the Berman procedure (see graph below). On this basis, the Tribunal found the arbitration agreement to be unscrupulous on the merits. In this regard, the Tribunal noted that abandoning the arbitration agreement to the Berman proceeding was not unscrupulous in itself (and in fact, something else would be directly contrary to AT&T Mobility LLC v.

Concepcion 563 U.S. 333 (2011), but arbitration must provide an accessible and affordable forum for the resolution of wage disputes in exchange for the worker`s waiver. OTO`s dissent indicates that the Six Justice majority not only appears to be departing from its own precedent, but is again violating the U.S. Supreme Court`s precedent on the preventive effect of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The U.S. Supreme Court has intervened in the past to remind California courts that the FAA anticipates such attempts to limit arbitration. See z.B. Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.p. 483 (1987); ATT Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.P. 333 (2011).

According to Ajamian, she had requested the removal of the arbitration provision, but the employer refused and told her that she had to sign the agreement to get her bonus. Ajamian signed the employment contract. Three years after his hiring, the claimant, a mechanic at a car dealership, was asked to sign an arbitration agreement, among other documents. The HR employee who handed him the documents was waiting for him to sign them and suggested that, according to the complainant, he could not take the time to read them first. . . .

Comments are closed.