Skip to main content

Want to Enforce Agreements Against Your Employees? Make Sure to Translate the Entire Document, Not Just Portions of It...


Carmona et al. v. Lincoln Millennium Car Wash Inc. et al. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight

Facts:  Current and former employees sued Lincoln Millennium Car Wash and other employers and alleged wage and hour violations.  The employers sought to compel arbitration in the case.  At issue was an arbitration clause in the employment agreement that the employees had signed.  While both the arbitration clause and a confidentiality clause had been translated into Spanish, the portion of the confidentiality clause that set forth the enforceability of arbitration and the fact that the employees were waiving their rights to appear before a court were not translated.  When the employment agreements were given to the employees, the sections that were not translated were not verbally explained, nor was the fact that arbitration would become binding in the event of a dispute verbally explained either. 

At trial, the court ruled that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and refused to enforce it on the grounds that the employers failed to translate key provisions of the agreement or give the employees time to review the employment agreements before signing.  The employers appealed.   

Holding:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling and held the arbitration provision was unconscionable and therefore could not be enforced against the employees.  In essence, the Court of Appeal noted that the employers hid the enforceability clause by failing to translate that portion of the employment agreement into Spanish.  The fact that portions of the agreement were translated into Spanish, but not all portions, signified that the employers evidently knew that the employees required Spanish translations of all of the employment agreement in order to understand it.

Judgment:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling and held that the arbitration provision in the employment agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

The Takeaway:  Employers need to use some common sense when choosing to translate employment agreements or other employment related documents.  If only a portion of the document is translated, and other portions related to the enforceability or other "waiver of rights" portions are not, courts will likely not take kindly to this type of perceived deception.  Smart employers will ensure that the entire document is translated, or at the very least, allow employees time to review documents that are required to be signed and ask any questions they may have. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Flier

Date:  April 21, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B248143.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

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
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