This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


participatory / Employment

A call to 'Armendariz'

audio

In 2000 the California Supreme Court set minimum standards for employment arbitration contracts in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. 24 Cal.4th 83. The ruling sought to ensure that employees who bargained away court access would nevertheless be able, in the private forum, to effectively vindicate rights and seek remedies provided by state law. Armendariz's guarantees render unenforceable agreements that don't prescribe neutral arbiters or sufficient discovery, and ones that place significant financial demands on complainants or require them to effectively waive statutory rights or remedies.

But since then the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered a series of arbitration rulings favoring a broad construal of the Federal Arbitration Act, and directing lower courts to generally resist striking agreements by virtue of their conflict with state laws or policies. E.g. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011); DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463 (2015); Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 2019 DJDAR 3349 (U.S. April 24, 2019). This has led some to argue that Armendariz's standards have been implicitly invalidated by those more recent high court decisions.

Now, Winston & Strawn LLP, hoping to send to arbitration a dispute with former partner Constance Ramos, is asking SCOTUS to explicitly declare as much. The firm was joined in June by a cohort of defense-side amici likewise calling for certiorari and reversal of a California Court of Appeals ruling that reaffirmed the validity of Armendariz.

This week's episode features in-depth conversations with two attorneys involved in the matter: Karla Gilbride, of Public Justice, who represents the plaintiff/respondent, and Fred Hiestand, solo practitioner and general counsel for the Civil Justice Association of California, who filed a defense-supporting amicus brief.

#464

Submit your own column for publication to Ben Armistead


Related Tests for Employment

self-study/Employment

Equal pay in America and the Golden State

By Betsy Butler

self-study/Employment

Supreme Court eviscerates limits on the ministerial exception

By Jeremy B. Rosen, Felix Shafir

self-study/Employment

Premium pay for meal break rounding violations after Donohue

By Kacey R. Riccomini, Arthur F. Silbergeld

self-study/Employment

Can employers fire employees for social or political speech?

By Joshua J. Borger

self-study/Employment

Dynamex’s classification test applies retroactively

By Felix Shafir

self-study/Employment

Proposition 22 and the tenuous path forward for app-based companies

By Jade Butman, Andrea Chavez

self-study/Employment

Key COVID-19 points for employers to keep in mind in 2021

By Shaye Schrick