Despite its best efforts, the California Legislature has been unable to substantially curtail the popularity of employment arbitrations in California. The hostility to employment arbitration remains evident, however, among the California courts. This is illustrated by the recent decision of the California Court of Appeals in Vazquez v. SaniSure, Inc.
In Vazquez, an employee was initially hired by an employer for almost two years between 2019 and 2021. During this period of employment, she was required to sign a binding arbitration agreement. The agreement provided that binding arbitration was the sole and exclusive means to resolve all disputes that arose out of, or related in any way, to her employment. The employee resigned in May 2021 and was re-hired four months later. However, upon re-hire, she was not required to sign a new arbitration agreement. She then continued her employment until July 2022, when her employment was terminated.
What followed was a scenario all too familiar with California employers: a dispute relating to her employment arose, and she filed a class action and Private Attorneys General Act lawsuit against her former employer. The employer moved to compel arbitration based on the existence of the signed binding arbitration agreement from her first period of employment. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration and the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.
The appellate court’s decision turned on the fact that the employee’s claims stemmed from her second period of employment and that no arbitration agreement covered such claims. Citing section 1280(i) of the California Arbitration Act, the Court of Appeal pointed out that arbitration agreements can be extended by implied agreement and that a cause of action that arises after the contract terminates may be subject to arbitration if the arbitration agreement survives termination of the remainder of the contract. But the employer in Vazquez could not show that an extension to the second period of employment was intended or implied in the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal reasoned that the negotiation of a second employment offer, which did not include an arbitration agreement, supported the employee’s argument that the signed arbitration agreement was only intended to cover those potential disputes pertaining to the first period of employment. Stated another way, the Court of Appeal limited the arbitration agreement to the period of employment in which it was signed because no language in the agreement allowed otherwise.
Besides workers in seasonal industries, re-hires tend to be rare. Even so, the Vazquez decision provides valuable guidance for such instances. Employers should not expect that policies will carry over from any prior period of employment to the next. Each time any employee is hired, the hiring process should be repeated in full to avoid potentially costly pitfalls.
- Counsel
Jared W. Slater is a Counsel in ECJ's Litigation and Employment Departments.
Jared's practice focuses on defending labor and employment actions, including claims for wage and hour violations, harassment, and discrimination both ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- New Law Expands Posting Requirements Regarding Workers’ Compensation Rights | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014