Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Montano filed a putative class action against Wet Seal, alleging that it failed to offer all required meal and rest periods to its California non-exempt retail employees; failed to provide all regular and overtime pay when due or when employment terminated; and failed to provide accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements, in violation of the Labor and Business and Professions Codes, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7, and Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. She included a representative claim under the Private Attorneys General Act. Montano propounded discovery requests and Wet Seal responded with objections but no substantive information. Montano moved to compel discovery responses. Before the hearing, Wet Seal moved to compel arbitration of Montano’s individual claims and to stay the action pending completion of arbitration, based on a “Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims." The trial court ultimately denied the motion for arbitration and granted the discovery motion. The court of appeal affirmed. View "Montano v. Wet Seal Retail, Inc." on Justia Law

Bower was hired by Inter-Con in 2007 and executed an arbitration agreement, covering claims for compensation and wages. In 2008, Bower executed a second arbitration agreement that added clauses prohibiting claims on behalf of a class or in a representative capacity and covering claims for breaks and rest periods. After his 2011 termination, Bower filed a putative class action, claiming failure to: provide meal and rest periods, pay wages, provide accurate itemized wage statements, pay wages upon termination, with claims under the Unfair Competition Act and the Private Attorneys General Act. Instead of moving to compel arbitration, Inter-Con answered, asserting, as an affirmative defense, that Bower’s claims were subject to arbitration. Inter-Con responded to discovery, but objected based on the arbitration agreement, and agreed to provide responses only to Bower in his individual capacity. Inter-Con did respond to an interrogatory concerning the number of class members employed during the class period and propounded its own discovery. Bower moved for leave to file an amended complaint to allege a broader class and additional theories and to compel further discovery responses. Inter-Con then moved to compel arbitration. The court held that “Defendant waived the right to arbitrate by propounding and responding to class discovery.” The court of appeal affirmed. View "Bower v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

In May 2014, the City of Reno decided to lay off thirty-two firefighters. The City stated that its decision was based on a lack of funds. A collective bargaining agreement between the City and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 731 (union) provides that the right to lay off employees due to lack of funds is reserved to the City without negotiation. The union and the firefighters who would be laid off (collectively, IAFF) filed a complaint in the district court, claiming that the City had the funds to continue the firefighters’ employment. The IAFF also filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The City filed a motion to dismiss due to the IAFF’s failure to exhaust contractual and administrative remedies. The district court proceeded to enjoin the City from proceeding with the layoffs while the IAFF exhausted its contractual grievance and administrative remedies. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the underlying grievance was not arbitrable under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, and therefore, the district court lacked authority to rule on the request for injunctive relief. View "City of Reno v. Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 731" on Justia Law

A union initiated arbitration proceedings after a police officer with the town of Stratford was terminated for lying in connection with his employment. A three-member arbitration panel determined that the officer’s termination was excessive and ordered that the town reinstate the officer. The town filed an application to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the award encouraged police officer dishonesty and thereby violated public policy against lying by law enforcement personnel. The trial court denied the application. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that the arbitration award violated a clear public policy against intentional dishonesty by police officers in connection with their employment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there is a public policy against intentional police officer dishonesty in connection with his or her employment, but (2) in this case, the arbitration award reinstating the officer’s employment did not violate that public policy. Remanded. View "Stratford v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 407" on Justia Law

In 2009, the Public Service Company of Colorado entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local #111, a union that represented some of the Company’s employees. About two years later, the Company unilaterally modified its retired workers’ healthcare benefits by increasing their copayment obligations for prescription drugs. The Union claimed that the Company had violated the collective-bargaining agreement by doing so and demanded arbitration. The Company refused to arbitrate, and the Union sued and asked the district court to stay the case and compel arbitration. When the district court denied that motion, the Union filed an interlocutory appeal. The issues this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review were: (1) whether the Tenth Circuit ha jurisdiction to hear the appeal; and (2) whether the district court should have sent the case to arbitration. The Court concluded that appellate jurisdiction existed under the Federal Arbitration Act, and that the district court properly denied compelling arbitration because the collective-bargaining agreement’s arbitration provision was not susceptible to an interpretation that covers disputes over retired workers’ healthcare benefits. The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s order and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. View "IBEW Local #111 v. Public Service Co." on Justia Law

When Khazin began working for TD, he signed an employment agreement and agreed to arbitrate all disputes. Khazin was responsible for due diligence on financial products offered by TD . When he discovered that one product was priced in a manner noncompliant with securities regulations, he reported to his supervisor, Demmissie, and recommended changing the price. Demmissie instructed Khazin to analyze the “revenue impact,” which revealed that remedying the violation would save customers $2,000,000, but would cost TD $1,150,000 and negatively impact Demmissie’s divisions. Demmissie allegedly told Khazin not to correct the problem. Demmissie and TD’s human resources department later confronted Khazin about a purported billing irregularity that, he claims, was unrelated to his duties and nonexistent. His employment was terminated. Khazin sued, asserting violation of the Dodd-Frank Act, premised on the allegation that he had been terminated in retaliation for “whistleblowing.” Khazin contended that the Act prevented TD from compelling the arbitration of his whistleblower retaliation claim, 18 U.S.C. 1514A(e)(2). The district court held that the provision did not prohibit enforcement of arbitration agreements executed before Dodd-Frank was passed. The Third Circuit concluded that Khazin’s whistleblower claim is subject to arbitration because it is not covered by the restrictions. View "Khazin v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp" on Justia Law

Matthew Tubaugh, a police officer with the City of Livingston, was discharged from the police force after a series of incidents. Tubaugh protested his discharge pursuant to his rights under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) then in effect between the City and the Montana Public Employees Association. An arbitrator determined that there was just cause to discipline Tubaugh but that the proper disciplinary action was a three-month suspension without pay. The district court vacated the arbitrator’s award. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to confirm the arbitration award, holding that the district court (1) incorrectly determined that the arbitrator exceeded her authority in her interpretation of the CBA; (2) erred in holding that the arbitrator violated public policy by requiring the City to reinstate Tubaugh to his previous position or to one of comparable pay; (3) erred by determining that the arbitrator’s award should be vacated because of its findings related to a fitness for duty examination; and (4) erred by holding that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by directing removal of the fitness for duty examination from Tubaugh’s personnel file. View "Livingston v. Mont. Pub. Employees Ass’n" on Justia Law

Real party in interest Alicia Moreno sued her former employer petitioner Garden Fresh Restaurant Corporation for claims related to a variety of alleged Labor Code violations. Moreno filed the action as a putative class action, and also pursued representative relief under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). Garden Fresh moved to compel arbitration of Moreno's claims, on an individual basis only, based on two arbitration agreements that Moreno signed during her tenure as an employee of Garden Fresh. Garden Fresh requested that the court dismiss Moreno's class and representative claims, arguing that the parties' arbitration agreements did not contemplate class- or representative-based arbitration. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration, but specifically left to the arbitrator to decide the question whether the arbitration agreements between the parties contemplated classwide and/or representative arbitration, thereby denying Garden Fresh's request that only Moreno's individual claims be sent to arbitration. Garden Fresh filed a petition for a writ of mandate to the Court of Appeal, presenting one issue: who decides whether an agreement to arbitrate disputes between the parties to the agreement authorizes class and/or representative arbitration when the contract is silent on the matter - the arbitrator or the court? The Court concluded that the question whether an arbitration agreement permits class and/or representative arbitration was a gateway issue, and thus reserved " 'for judicial determination [u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.' " The Court granted the request for a writ of mandate to direct the trial court: (1) to vacate that portion of its order leaving it to the arbitrator to determine whether the parties agreed to class and/or representative arbitration; (2) to conduct further proceedings as necessary to determine whether the parties' arbitration agreement contemplates class and/or representative arbitration, and whether the plaintiff's representative PAGA claims may be arbitrated, or rather, whether that claim should be bifurcated; and (3) to enter a new order setting forth the court's determination as to these issues. View "Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

After the Town of Athol unilaterally increased copayment amounts that members of the Professional Firefighters of Athol, Local 1751, I.A.F.F. (Union) pay for medical services under their health insurance plans, the Union filed a grievance under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA). An arbitrator determined that the Town violated the CBA by making the changes unilaterally. The Town filed a complaint in the superior court seeking to vacate the award and other relief. The superior court confirmed the portion of the award compelling the parties to collectively bargain over changes to copayment rates and vacated two remedial aspects of the award. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed in part, holding that the superior court judge erred in vacating any portion of the award. Remanded for entry of a judgment confirming the award in its entirety. View "Town of Athol v. Prof’l Firefighters of Athol, Local 1751, I.A.F.F." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-respondent Network Capital Funding Corporation filed a declaratory relief action alleging its arbitration agreement with defendant-appellant Erik Papke required Papke to arbitrate his wage and hour claims on an individual basis rather than the classwide basis he sought in his pending arbitration proceeding. According to Papke, the broad language in the parties’ arbitration agreement required the arbitrator, not the court, to decide whether the agreement authorized class arbitration. The trial court denied Papke’s petition, concluding it must decide whether the arbitration agreement authorized class arbitration, and in doing so found this particular agreement did not allow class arbitration. Papke appealed. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court: "[d]eciding whether the parties’ arbitration agreement authorizes class arbitration does not simply determine what arbitration procedures the parties agreed to use, but rather whose claims the parties agreed to arbitrate. Supreme Court precedent requires courts to decide whose claims are covered by an arbitration agreement unless the parties clearly and unmistakably agree to have the arbitrator decide that question. Because Papke’s and Network Capital’s arbitration agreement does not clearly and unmistakably designate the arbitrator to determine whether the agreement authorizes class arbitration, we conclude the trial court properly decided that question." Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court properly determined Papke’s and Network Capital’s arbitration agreement did not authorize class arbitration. View "Network Capital Funding Corp. v. Papke" on Justia Law