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,...
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