|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link California Court: Arbitrators Cannot Decide Enforceability of Pre-Employment Arbitration Agreements.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 25, 2008 Continuing what appears to be an attempt to eliminate the use of private arbitration agreements, the California Court of Appeal has struck down a pre-employment arbitration agreement for at least the fourth time over the past year. Ontiveros v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., No. A114848 (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2008). Declaring the agreement “unconscionable,” a California Court of Appeal ruled that a provision giving the arbitrator the authority to decide enforceability was unenforceable. The agreement also failed to comply with the minimum requirements for lawful arbitration of non-waivable civil rights claims set forth by the California Supreme Court in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Svcs., Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83 (Cal. 2000). Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration and allowed the plaintiff’s claims of sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation to proceed in court. Report Link Rulings on California Arbitration Agreements Stiffen Challenges Facing Employers.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 16, 2008 Reflecting what appears to be an abiding hostility toward private arbitration agreements, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that “no meeting of the minds” occurred between the employer and employee regarding the employer’s dispute resolution procedures, and hence, no valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. Metters v. Ralphs Grocery Co., No. G038380 (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 1, 2008). Report Link Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement is Not Enforceable .Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - November 15, 2007 In another important case affecting the use and application of arbitration agreements in the employment setting, the California Court of Appeal recently ruled that a provision in an employment arbitration agreement waiving the employee’s right to pursue a class action was unenforceable. Report Link California Pre-Employment Arbitration Agreement Ruled Unconscionable.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 30, 2007 Continuing the assault on private arbitration agreements in California, the Court of Appeal ruled that a pre-employment arbitration agreement containing a class action waiver was unconscionable and unenforceable. Murphy v. Check n' Go of Cal., Inc., No. A114442 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2007). The court further ruled that a provision allowing an arbitrator to determine unconscionability was unenforceable because the overall arbitration agreement was a "contract of adhesion." In analyzing the case, the Court of Appeal relied on the California Supreme Court's recent decision in Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 443 (Cal. 2007), in which the Court struck down another pre-employment arbitration agreement containing a class action waiver. Report Link California Court of Appeals Holds that Employer’s Arbitration Agreement with a Class Action Waiver Is Invalid.Ford & Harrison LLP - October 24, 2007 A recent decision by a California Court of Appeal emphasizes the importance of a valid arbitration agreement between employers and employees. In Murphy v. Check ‘N Go (10/17/2007), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny an employer’s motion to compel arbitration based upon an unconscionable arbitration agreement. Importantly, the Court of Appeal determined that the class action waiver provision of the agreement was unconscionable. Report Link California Supreme Court Restricts Class Action Waivers In Employment Arbitration Agreements (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - October 01, 2007 In Gentry v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate court’s denial of a writ of mandate upholding a class arbitration waiver, and held that employment arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are unenforceable if class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way of vindicating employees’ rights than individual arbitration. Report Link Undermining Arbitration.Shaw Valenza LLP - September 24, 2007 The California Supreme Court's Aug. 30 decision in Gentry v. Superior Court tightens the courts' reins on "pre-dispute" agreements to arbitrate employment law claims. A pre-dispute arbitration agreement, by definition, is one to which the parties agree before any dispute between them has arisen. Report Link Class Waivers May Be Unenforceable in Pre-Employment Arbitration Agreements in California.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 06, 2007 Adding to the woes of California employers, compared to many of their counterparts elsewhere, the California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that pre-employment arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are not enforceable where, as in the case of certain claims for unpaid overtime, it is found that class arbitration would be a "significantly more effective way of vindicating the rights of affected employees than individual arbitration." Gentry v. Superior Court, No. S141502 (Cal. Aug. 30, 2007). The Supreme Court also concluded that the agreement in issue had an "element" of procedural unconscionability, notwithstanding the presence of a clause allowing employees to opt out of the arbitration agreement within 30 days after signing it. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment upholding the class arbitration waiver and its finding that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable. Report Link California Supreme Court Restricts Class Action Waivers In Employment Arbitration Agreements (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 15, 2007 In Gentry v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate court’s denial of a writ of mandate upholding a class arbitration waiver, and held that employment arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are unenforceable if class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way of vindicating employees’ rights than individual arbitration. Report Link Law Firm’s Own Arbitration Policy Found Unconscionable (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - June 01, 2007 In Davis v. O’Melveny & Myers LLP, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a law firm’s arbitration program covering all employees of the firm is unenforceable under California law because it is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Report Link California Court of Appeal Validates Arbitration Agreement Covering Claims for Unpaid Bonus and Severance.Ogletree Deakins - April 24, 2007 Does the Federal Arbitration Act preempt claims for unpaid wages under California law? Report Link Can Employees Waive Class-Action Arbitration Agreements.Shaw Valenza LLP - January 29, 2007 Employers understand employment litigation in court entails expense, delay, and uncertainty. Seeking to avoid a jury’s evaluation of workplace decisions, some employers have turned to alternative dispute resolution programs (called “ADR”). ADR can involve internal complaint procedures, mediation, and arbitration. In principle, both employers and employees can benefit from the faster and less formal procedures associated with ADR.
Report Link Agreements to Submit Disputes to a Judicial Referee May Allow Employers to Avoid the Pitfalls of Jury Trials and ArbitrationLittler Mendelson, P.C. - September 01, 2006 The United States Supreme Court endorsed the use of binding arbitration to resolve employment disputes in 1991. Since that time, many employers have implemented policies of binding arbitration as a way to avoid the vagaries of a jury trial. Over the years, however, the pitfalls of binding arbitration have become evident - primary among them being that there is no ground to appeal an arbitrator's decision, even when the decision is contrary to applicable law.1 As a result, employers have been searching for alternative means of dispute resolution. Report Link New Decision Regarding Pre-dispute Jury Trial Waivers May Have Employment Law Implications.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 29, 2006 Contractual pre-dispute jury trial waivers were nullified by the Supreme Court of California in 2005 in the case, Grafton Partners L.P. v. Superior Court, Cal. Sup. Ct. No. S123344 (August 4, 2005). Now, the California Court of Appeal has decided that the Grafton decision does not apply to invalidate a contract for reference that similarly waives a jury trial prior to a dispute between the contracting parties. Report Link California Court of Appeal rules that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement is valid in an employment case.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - January 24, 2006 On January 19, 2006, California's Second District Court of Appeal published its opinion in Gentry v. Superior Court (Case No. B169805). Gentry potentially is of major significance to all employers in California, as it upheld a clause contained in a pre-dispute arbitration agreement that precluded class arbitrations. The clause, as applied, required all employees bound by the arbitration agreement to (a) bring their covered disputes to arbitration instead of court and (b) bring those disputes only as individuals and not as part of or representing a class. Effectively, therefore, the impact of the clause was to eliminate class actions entirely. Report Link Mandatory Arbitration Again Available to Employers in California and Other 9th Circuit States.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 06, 2003 Reversing a 1998 decision, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that federal anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit employers from requiring employees to agree to mandatory arbitration of employment disputes. EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, (9th Cir., No. 00-57222, Sept. 30, 2003) (en banc). Report Link Arbitration Agreements in California: Where Are We Now?Jackson Lewis LLP - September 03, 2003 California employers considering whether they should require their employees to participate in a mandatory arbitration program do not have an easy task. Report Link California Supreme Court Issues Opinion Underscoring Importance that Employers Review and Update Their Arbitration Agreements.Thelen Reid & Priest LLP - March 06, 2003 The California Supreme Court just issued a ruling that could jeopardize California arbitration agreements between employers and their employees, underscoring the importance of reviewing such agreements to ensure that they comply with standards of due process. Report Link Recent Developments in California: Employee Arbitration Agreements.Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP - October 29, 2002 We want to bring to your attention two recent developments concerning arbitration. Report Link Proposed California Legislation Would Restrict Arbitration of Employment-Related Disputes.Kauff, McClain & McGuire LLP - June 27, 2002 The California Legislature is considering several bills that would drastically change the manner in which employment disputes are resolved in the state. Report Link Arbitration Agreement Which Employer Coerced Employee Into Signing Is Unenforceable [PDF File].O'Melveny & Myers LLP - May 01, 2002 The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable,
the Court held, because of the employer’s oppressive tactics to secure the employee’s signature. Report Link California Court Of Appeal Holds That Parties Cannot Contractually Provide That An Arbitration Award Is Subject To Judicial Review [PDF File].O'Melveny & Myers LLP - May 01, 2002 In a case of first impression, a California Court of Appeal held that parties to an arbitration agreement cannot validly agree that an arbitration award is subject to judicial review to determine whether the award is supported by law and substantial evidence. Report Link Initiation of Pre-Arbitration Procedures Do Not Satisfy Exhaustion Requirement.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - December 28, 2001 Discusses Swiderski v. Milberg, Wise, Bershad, Hines & Lerach, LLP, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13047 (Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div 1, Dec. 18, 2001), in which the court dismissed a wrongful termination based on an arbitration agreement.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 23NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Managing Business Exposures Successfully: Are You "All In" For The Continual Wave Of Workplace Risks?
Irving
2008-9-4 Jackson Lewis LLPTOP TEN WAYS TO VIOLATE WAGE-HOUR LAWSSacramento
September 9, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsLos Angeles
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsCosta Mesa
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSacramento
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSan Francisco
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPEmployee vs. ContractorColumbia
September 9, 2008 Nexsen PruetEmployee Free Choice Act: Labor’s Attack on Your Employees’ Right to ChooseOnline
September 9, 2008 McGuire WoodsThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActStamford
2008-9-10 Jackson Lewis LLPHOW TO CONDUCT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONSSan Francisco
September 11, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLP |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds