Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

In 2000, plaintiff accepted the Gray law firm’s offer of employment as an associate attorney, including a provision requiring both parties to submit all disputes relating to the employment relationship to binding arbitration. In 2005, Gray merged into DLA Piper. In 2006, plaintiff signed a “Confidential Resignation Agreement and General Release of Claims.” DLA agreed to continue to provide insurance and other benefits until August 2006, when his employment would officially terminate. The Termination Agreement is silent concerning dispute resolution. Plaintiff later sued, alleging: breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of contract; promissory fraud; and constructive fraud, arguing that the firm had “undervalued” his benefits by computing them based on “artificially reduced salary figures.” DLA sought to compel arbitration. Plaintiff asserted the Termination Agreement constituted a novation, extinguishing the arbitration provision, and that even if the provision had survived, claims involving the benefit plan were not subject to arbitration. The court compelled arbitration. In 2013, the arbitrator determined DLA had breached the Termination Agreement and plaintiff had suffered emotional distress, and awarded $41,000 in contract damages plus interest, $45,000 in emotional distress damages, and $7,535.67 in costs. The court of appeal affirmed confirmation of the award. View "Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit against his employer, alleging various Labor Code violations and unfair business practice. Plaintiff had entered into an agreement with his employer, providing that all disputes arising out of his employment would be resolved by arbitration, and the agreement prohibited class arbitration. The trial court denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration under the test laid out in Gentry v. Superior Court. After the trial court's ruling, the Supreme Court held, in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, that Gentry’s rule against employment class waivers was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The court concluded, however, that this matter is not subject to the FAA and that Gentry’s holding has not been overturned under California law in situations where the FAA does not apply. Accordingly, the court found that the agreement’s class waiver provision is unenforceable. Neither party asserts that class arbitration is appropriate. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Garrido v. Air Liquide Industrial U.S. LP" on Justia Law

Miranda is a former employee of Anderson Enterprises; Hansen is the company’s general manager. During his employment, Miranda signed an “Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy” by which agreed to arbitrate all employment claims and waived the right to arbitrate claims as a class or collective action. In 2013, Miranda filed a purported class action lawsuit, asserting wage and hour claims, including a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Lab. Code, 2698) claim. The trial court found the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable, dismissed the class and representative claims without prejudice based on the arbitration agreement’s waiver, directed Miranda to arbitrate his individual claims, and stayed the superior court proceedings pending completion of arbitration of the individual claims. The court of appeal reversed as to the representative PAGA claim, based on a subsequently-issued California Supreme Court opinion, Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC (2014), under which the waiver is unenforceable. The court noted that Miranda had represented that he would not pursue his individual claims through arbitration and concluded that the PAGA ruling was, therefore, appealable. View "Miranda v. Anderson Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

The Union filed a grievance against Verizon under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), after Verizon eliminated communications technician positions. At issue on appeal was whether the arbitrator exceeded his power by issuing a substituted award after he determined that he had exceeded his power in the original award. In this case, the arbitrator decided, at least initially, that the issue submitted included both the “minimal additional training” and the “previously held” language in the CBA. While the arbitrator was later persuaded that this was error, Rule 40 of the AAA Labor Arbitration Rules precluded him from making that determination and issuing the substituted award. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that the arbitrator exceeded his power. View "Local Union 824, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Verizon Florida, LLC" on Justia Law

Three petitioners sued their former employer and certain of its agents and associates (collectively, “Employer”) asserting minimum wage and overtime claims individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The district court entered orders compelling individual arbitration of Petitioners’ claims and denying their motions for class certification. Each petitioner signed the same long-form arbitration agreement, which included a clause waiving the right to initiate or participate in class actions. Petitioners sought extraordinary writ relief, contending that Employer’s failure to countersign the long-form agreement made it unenforceable, that the class action waiver violated state and federal law, and, in the case of one petitioner, Employer waived its right to compel arbitration by litigating with him in state and federal court. The Supreme Court denied writ relief, holding that Petitioners’ arguments were unavailing and that the district court did not err in compelling individual arbitration of their claims. View "Tallman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

This case stems from a dispute over a petition to compel arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between IATSE and InSync. The district court granted IATSE’s petition to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties’ initial agreement and “stayed” the case. The court concluded that the district court's arbitration order was final under 28 U.S.C. 1291 because the stay lacked any legal or practical effect. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction to review the order. On the merits, the court concluded that, given the scope of the arbitration provision and the nature of the parties’ dispute, the arbitrator and not the district court must consider IATSE and InSync’s competing interpretations of the evergreen clause and decide whether the 2003–2007 CBA expired or was terminated. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "IATSE Local 720 V. InSync Show Prod." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Michael Parnow, Shawn Lisenby, Bob Andrade, Gabriel Bautista, and Saiyaz Abdul filed a class action against Universal Protection Service, LP and Universal Services of America, Inc. (collectively, UPS). Plaintiffs worked as armed security guards at the Yolo County Superior Court, under the employ of UPS. As part of their job, they have to provide equipment, such as guns, handcuffs, and radios, and have to pay the costs to maintain their certification to work as armed guards, but they are not reimbursed for equipment or training costs. When they filed an administrative complaint, they were all fired except plaintiff Lisenby, and none were paid their wages. The trial court granted a stipulated stay, pending the outcome of a then-pending case in the California Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court issued its decision, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as a “representative action” under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) and also petitioned to compel class-wide arbitration. The agreement listed a number of disputes that were covered, including “any state or local statutes and ordinances relating to wage and hour or wage payment matters.” It excluded employees covered by collective bargaining agreements, and disputes involving workers compensation and unemployment insurance. UPS answered with a general denial, coupled with various affirmative defenses, including that the class action claims were barred by the arbitration agreement. UPS also filed a cross-complaint seeking a declaration that: (1) the trial court, not the arbitrator, should decide whether class action relief was barred by the arbitration agreement; and (2) that the arbitration agreement barred class actions. After plaintiffs answered the cross-complaint, UPS moved to compel individual arbitration and stay the proceedings. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, in part arguing that under American Arbitration Association (AAA) Rules, whether class arbitrations were permitted was a matter for the arbitrator to decide. Plaintiffs obtained judicial notice of the AAA Rules. The trial court denied the motion to compel individual arbitration, and stayed the suit pending the arbitration. UPS petitioned for a writ of mandate, seeking to set aside the order compelling it to submit to arbitration. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the agreements’ incorporation by reference of the AAA Rules vested the arbitrator with the power to decide the disputed issue. The alternative writ was discharged, the stay (issued previously) was vacated, and the petition for mandate was denied. View "Universal Protection Service v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Carlson sued Home Team, alleging that she was employed as Home’s office manager from February 4, 2013, until her wrongful termination on July 1, 2013. Carlson sought damages for wrongful termination, harassment, breach of her employment agreement, unpaid overtime, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Home moved to compel arbitration, because on Carlson’s first day of work, she was directed to Home’s electronic “onboarding system,” which contained company policies, including Home’s Agreement to Arbitrate. Carlson objected to the Agreement in an email, stating: “I would like to negotiate the terms.” In a conference call with Home’s human resources manager, Carlson asked who would pay for any arbitration and what firm would perform it. The HR Manager began to explain, but Carlson “cut [her] off,” saying that was all the information she needed and she would sign the Agreement. Home’s in-house counsel produced a copy of the Agreement that Carlson “signed electronically,” which was kept in her personnel file.The trial court denied Home’s motion. The court of appeal affirmed, finding the arbitration agreement procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and rejecting contentions that state law unconscionability principles are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1, and that the courts could sever unconscionable provisions. View "Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc." on Justia Law

Appleberry worked for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, under a collective bargaining agreement. Deeming her performance unsatisfactory, the agency placed her on a “performance improvement plan” and then found that she failed to improve. Eventually, relying on that failure, the agency fired her. When Appleberry brought her removal to arbitration, as authorized (but not required) by the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator concluded that she could not challenge the key bases for the removal, i.e., the agency determinations that she should be placed on the performance-improvement plan and that she failed under the plan; that the collective bargaining agreement, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7121, prescribed the exclusive process, including time limits, for challenging those determinations; but that Appleberry had abandoned that process after initiating it through filing grievances, allowing the time for completing challenges to run. The arbitrator barred reconsideration of “issues that were raised in [her] earlier grievances, or that could have been raised but were not.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the arbitrator should not have barred consideration of the performance-improvement-plan issues raised in her earlier, uncompleted grievances; the arbitrator properly enforced the grievance process designated as “exclusive” in the collective bargaining agreement. View "Appleberry v. Dep't of Homeland Sec." on Justia Law

Former employees brought a putative class action against their former employer, NMG, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, and NMG moved to compel arbitration under its mandatory arbitration program for employment-related disputes. NMG submitted evidence that, at the time of plaintiff’s employment (2007-2009), it distributed to each new employee a copy of its “Mandatory Arbitration Agreement,” brochures explaining the arbitration program, and an employee handbook that included a brief description of the program The trial court initially ordered arbitration of all claims except a claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) Lab. Code, 2698, but later reconsidered and denied the motion, concluding the arbitration agreement at issue was illusory. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its initial order; an arbitrator, rather than a court, must determine any challenges to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement; and the arbitration agreement is enforceable and encompasses all claims, including his PAGA claim. The court found multiple unconscionable aspects to the NMG Arbitration Agreement. View "Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc." on Justia Law