In law school, aspiring attorneys are taught fundamental concepts related to contracts, including “agency”, “third party beneficiary”, and “equitable estoppel”, terms which relate to determining who should be subject to the terms of a contract.  In Hernandez v. Meridian Management Services, LLC, the California Court of Appeals referred back to these law school basics in denying a motion to compel arbitration brought by a number of companies who were alleged to be “joint employers” of an employee, but who were not signatories to an arbitration agreement between ...

In a year of tough decisions for California employers, the Ninth Circuit just issued another mixed bag of legal decisions to navigate, this time regarding the enforceability of mandatory arbitration agreements.

CA Labor Code § 432.6 and Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Bonta

In October, 2019, California passed Assembly Bill 51, which became codified as Labor Code § 432.6, effective January 1, 2020. This law provided that employers could not require employees to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. In addition, it created civil and criminal ...

Last year, the United States Supreme Court ruled that class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable.  But, the ruling did not address an agreement that is silent or ambiguous regarding the intent to proceed as a class.

This issue was recently resolved by Lamps Plus v. Varela, in which the United States Supreme Court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court may not compel class arbitration unless the parties have expressed their clear consent.

This case involved an arbitration clause that was ambiguous regarding the parties’ intent to ...