In Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Co., No. 11-56673, 2013 WL 5779332 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2013), the plaintiff, a former deli clerk, brought a class action against Ralphs for various alleged wage and hour violations of the California Labor Code. As a condition of employment, Chavarria signed an arbitration agreement containing a class action waiver. … Continue Reading
In a post last week, we noted a recent trend of federal courts strongly enforcing employment arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). That trend continues in Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLP, Case No. 11-17530 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2013), which holds that a defendant’s pretrial participation in litigation does not, absent prejudice… Continue Reading
Two recent decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have reaffirmed the enforceability of employment-related arbitration agreements containing class action waivers. In Sutherland v. Ernst & Young and Raniere v. Citigroup, Inc. the Second Circuit held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires courts to enforce a valid agreement to arbitrate… Continue Reading
Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, 2013 WL 139200 (Cal. App. Jan. 11, 2013) Israel Flores and Andrea Naasz sued West Covina Toyota (WCT) and Toyota Motor Sales for selling them a “lemon,” alleging both individual and class action claims, including claims for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). WCT filed a motion… Continue Reading
Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc., 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1292 (Dec. 20, 2012) Maribel Baltazar sued her former employer, Forever 21, Inc., alleging she was constructively discharged and subjected to discrimination and harassment based on her race and sex. In response, Forever 21 filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement between… Continue Reading
Truly Nolen of America v. Superior Court, 2012 WL 3222211 (Aug. 13, 2012) California law involving classwide wage-and-hour arbitration continues to evolve in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), which generally prohibits states from requiring additional due process guarantees (not… Continue Reading
Breaking with the National Labor Relations Board’s ruling that arbitration agreements containing class waivers can violate federal labor law, the California Court of Appeal recently held that an arbitration agreement precluding class arbitration was not unconscionable, nor would enforcing it violate California state law, federal law or public policy.
The plaintiff in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, brought a putative class action and a representative action under California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for various wage and hour violations. During his employment, Iskanian agreed that he would not assert class action or representative action claims against his employer and, instead, agreed to submit… Continue Reading
In a 2-1 decision, the California Court of Appeal held that representative actions under California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) may not be waived in mandatory, pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements. (Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., Cal. Ct. App., No. B222689 [pdf]). This decision comes as something of a surprise in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent… Continue Reading
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) In this landmark new opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) prohibits states from conditioning the enforceability of an arbitration agreement on the availability of class action arbitration procedures. Although this case arose in the consumer context (it involved AT&T’s… Continue Reading
In a ruling that has garnered significant interest among employers, the U.S. Supreme Court held on Wednesday that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts the California Supreme Court’s efforts to impose heightened unconscionability standards on class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements. This decision may also sound the death knell for similar restrictions imposed by California… Continue Reading
A recent decision by the California Supreme Court could have resounding implications for the enforceability of arbitration awards – a matter of great concern in employment law given the prevalence of arbitration agreements governing employment relationships – and opens the door for employees to petition the courts to compel arbitrators to decide the merits of their statutory claims.
14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 129 S. Ct. 1456 (2009) Plaintiffs, members of the Service Employees International Union (the “SEIU”), filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and, after receiving their right-to-sue letters, filed suit against their employer alleging age discrimination. In… Continue Reading
Proskauer Prevails As The Court Holds That Collectively Bargained Agreements for The Arbitration of Statutory Discrimination Claims are Enforceable On April 1, 2009, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Proskauer Rose’s client 14 Penn Plaza LLC, holding that a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) that clearly and unmistakably requires… Continue Reading