Skip to main content

Mandatory Arbitration Policies: The Danger of "One Sided" Policies

Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Co. - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  After having worked at Ralphs Grocery Co. for roughly six months, Plaintiff brought a class action against Ralphs for several alleged wage and hour violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code.  As a condition of employment, Plaintiff had signed an employment application that included an arbitration agreement that provided for a class action waiver.  Ralphs moved to compel arbitration, pursuant to the arbitration clause in the application.

 The district court held that Defendant's arbitration policy was unconscionable and denied Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. 

Holding: The Court examined Defendant's arbitration policy and found it was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

 In regard to the procedural unconscionability of the arbitration policy, the Court held it was unconscionable on the grounds that it was “presented on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis with no opportunity for Plaintiff to negotiate its terms.”  In addition, Plaintiff was not provided with the terms of the agreement until three weeks after she agreed to be bound by it and the policy required no signature by the employee or Defendant to become effective.

 In regard to the substantive unconscionability of the arbitration policy, the Court held it was unjustifiably one-sided and it "shocked the conscience."  Notably, the Court focused on the fact that the policy arbitrator selection process would always produce an arbitrator selected by Defendant whenever an employee initiated the arbitration; the policy precluded institutional arbitration administrators, which have in place procedures to select a neutral arbitrator; and the policy required that the arbitrator apportion his or her fees evenly between Defendant, which in effect "price out" employees from the dispute resolution process.

 The Takeaway:  This holding from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to put employers on notice that one sided arbitration policies will not withhold judicial scrutiny.  Consequently, employers should focus on drafting arbitration policies that are not so one sided or coercive and instead draft policies that are more equitable in the eyes of an increasingly discerning judiciary.
Judgment:  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling and held that Defendant's arbitration policy is unconscionable under California law and remanded the case for further proceedings

 Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Clifton

 Date:  October 28, 2013

 Opinion:  http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/10/28/11-56673.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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more