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,...
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

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more