Skip to main content

Employee’s Refusal to Initial Arbitration Provision in Employment Agreement Did NOT Prevent Enforcement of Arbitration Provision

 

Martinez v. BaronHR, Inc. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four


Facts:  Joseph Martinez (“Martinez”) was recruited by BaronHR, an employment staffing company, for an employment position with a company.  As part of the recruitment, Martinez was required to sign an employment agreement which included an arbitration provision, entitled “Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims.”  This arbitration provision was several pages long and included a waiver of the right to a jury trial.  This section required that the employee initial this acknowledgement of the waiver of the right to a jury.  Martinez did not provide his initials following this section.  At the end of the employment agreement, there was an additional statement that the employee acknowledged and also stated:  “AFTER SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, EMPLOYEE HAS NO RIGHT TO PURSUE CLAIMS AGAINST THE COMPANY IN COURT AND BEFORE A JURY, BUT ONLY THROUGH THE ARBITRATION PROCESS.”  Martinez signed the end of the employment agreement.

Martinez subsequently filed suit against BaronHR and alleged discriminatory and retaliatory mistreatment.  BaronHR moved to compel arbitration and Martinez opposed it.  Martinez claimed that an arbitration provision, requiring him to waive his right to a jury trial, was not beneficial to employees as a whole.  Consequently, he stated that is why he did not place his initials following the arbitration provision.  The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that there was ambiguity about whether Martinez agreed to waive his right to a jury trial and consent to arbitration.

Holding:  The Court recognized that the issue in this case centered on consent, with the parties’ intent to be ascertained solely from the written agreement.

In this case, the Court pointed out that Martinez acknowledged that he had signed the employment agreement, and deemed to have assented to all of its terms.  In fact, at the end of the agreement was the prominent statement that the employee agreed to waive the right to a jury trial.  There was no dispute that Martinez had signed the agreement, right below this final waiver statement.

The trial court’s decision to give weight to Martinez’s statement that he did not believe the arbitration provision was beneficial to employees (and therefore the reason he did not initial this section) was found to have been improper.  As the language in the employment agreement was not vague or ambiguous, the Court held that considering the thoughts or impressions of Martinez, in an attempt to circumvent the plain language in the employment agreement, was improper.  Rather, the employment agreement set out that by signing, the employee agreed to waive their right to a jury trial.

Judgment:  The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court and held that BaronHR’s motion to compel arbitration found in the employment agreement should be granted, irrespective of the fact that the employee did not initial the arbitration provision. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Currey 

The Takeaway:  I wanted to flag this opinion for readers for a few reasons.  First, as the Court recognized, as there was no dispute over the language of the agreement (in regard to whether the language was vague or ambiguous), it was improper to consider the motives/reasoning of one of the parties.  Consequently, the plain language of the agreement controlled.  Second, had there been no “certification” statement at the end of the agreement, it is possible that Martinez could have avoided the arbitration requirement.  However, the fact that Martinez signed the agreement, directly below the statement that the employee acknowledged they waived the right to a jury trial and instead would submit their claim to arbitration, doomed his argument.  Keep in mind, many employment agreements contain a similar “certification” statement at the end of the agreement.  Just because an employee does not initial a particular section (or pages of the agreement), that does not necessarily mean the employee can circumvent particular provisions or portions of the agreement.  Look no further than this case for a clear example.

Date:  July 8, 2020

Opinion:  https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B296858.PDF

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more