Legal Developments
Recent California employment-law developments in Arbitration.
The Fourth District held that an arbitration clause limited to disputes about an employment agreement did not reach a terminated employee’s FEHA, CFRA, and Tameny claims, which exist independent of the contract.
The Fourth District held that an employer’s arbitration and confidentiality agreements must be read together—and, so read, unfairly forced the employee to arbitrate while letting the employer sue in court.
The First District held that California’s ban on using a non-conviction arrest in employment decisions did not reach a Utah remote worker whose termination was decided in Illinois—and affirmed the denial of his petition to vacate the arbitration award.
The Ninth Circuit held that a dispute “arises” under the EFAA when an employee registers disagreement and the employer opposes it—and that a pre-2022 dispute must go to arbitration.
The Second District held that harassment based on sexual orientation is a form of sexual harassment under FEHA—bringing the case within the EFAA and exempting it from arbitration.
The Third District affirmed that an arbitration agreement reaching all of an employee’s claims—employment-related or not—against the employer and its third parties, without justification or mutuality, was unconscionable and unenforceable.
The First District held that a furniture delivery driver who made intrastate retail deliveries was a transportation worker exempt from the FAA—and that he retained standing to litigate non-individual PAGA claims in court.
The Ninth Circuit held that an employment arbitration agreement limited to employment-related disputes was distinguishable from Cook v. USC and not substantively unconscionable, reversing an order denying arbitration.
The First District held that the San Francisco Charter carves the at-will status of the City’s exempt attorneys out of binding interest arbitration—so union proposals for just-cause discipline and seniority-based layoffs were not arbitrable.
The Ninth Circuit granted mandamus and held that a district court cannot compel arbitration without first deciding whether the FAA or state law supplies its authority—a question it may not delegate to the arbitrator.