Perspective
Jan. 31, 2017
Why the FAA preempts decades of California arbitration law
Contract law has long rejected the proposition that parties to the contract must bear identical — or even similar or proportional — responsibilities. Legal consideration is all that is necessary, not mutuality. For a time, arbitration cases correctly said the same thing. By Paul W. Cane Jr.
Paul W. Cane Jr.
Partner
Paul Hastings LLP
Labor & employement
101 California St Fl 48
San Francisco , CA 94111-5871
Phone: (415) 856-7000
Fax: (415) 856-7100
Email: paulcane@paulhastings.com
UC Berkeley SOL Boalt Hall
Paul W. Cane Jr. is a partner in the San Francisco office of Paul Hastings LLP and co-chair of its appellate practice group. He has argued numerous arbitration-related cases in the California appellate courts, including the Baltazar case and Dotson v. Amgen, Inc., 181 Cal. App. 4th 975 (2010).
For 20 years it has been taken as gospel in California that arbitration agreements require something close to mirror-image bilaterality of obligation. In particular, it has become gospel that so-called "employer favoring" carve-outs from arbitration - particularly carve-outs of intellectual property claims, which tend to be brought by the employer rather than the employee - render an arbitration agreement unconscionable.
...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In