A recent opinion out of the Texas 14th Court of Appeals has raised the bar for employers trying to enforce arbitration agreements electronically signed by employees. See Houston ANUSA, LLC d/b/a AutoNation USA Houston v. Shattenkirk, No. 14-20-00446-CV, 2023 WL 5437714 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 24, 2023, no pet. h.).
Continue Reading Employee E-Signatures in Arbitration Agreements Under Scrutiny
Since the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana in June 2022, trial courts in California have grappled with how to address the non-individual portion of a plaintiff’s PAGA claim that remains in court when a plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration. Most trial courts have found it appropriate to stay the non-individual portion of the PAGA claim until the arbitration’s conclusion because that outcome would determine whether the employee retains standing to proceed in court. On July 17, 2023, in the highly anticipated decision of Adolph v. Uber Technologies, the California Supreme Court addressed several questions in the post-Viking River landscape, including the propriety of staying non-individual PAGA claims pending the completion of arbitration.
Continue Reading California’s High Court Authorizes Stay Of Non-Individual PAGA Claims During Pendency Of Arbitration
On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (Case No. 20-1573) reversing the California Court of Appeal’s decision to affirm the denial of Viking’s motion to compel arbitration Moriana’s “individual” PAGA claim and to dismiss her other PAGA claims.
Continue Reading BREAKING: Supreme Court Reverses California Court of Appeal in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana
Employers operating in California often ask employees to agree to arbitrate employment-related disputes as a term and condition of employment. In its recent Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta decision, the Ninth Circuit took a significant step toward prohibiting such mandatory employment arbitration agreements. However, the combination of a 2-1 panel decision (authored by a visiting judge from the Tenth Circuit), a scathing dissenting opinion, and a holding that splits with decisions from the First and Fourth Circuits all but ensures more litigation. As a result, the case is far from over, so while employers eventually may have to consider changing their arbitration agreement practices, they very likely have some time to let the dust settle before doing so.
Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit, Mandatory Arbitration Agreements, and “Clown Bop Bags”
In Country Wide Financial Corporation, 369 NLRB No. 12 (2020), the National Labor Relations Board ruled that an mandatory arbitration agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act because it restricted an employees’ ability to file and pursue unfair labor practice charges before the Board.
Continue Reading The NLRB Rules Mandatory Arbitration Agreement As Overbroad
Earlier today, Eastern District of California Judge Kimberly Mueller granted a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the state of California from enforcing AB 51, which sought to prohibit companies in California from requiring arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.
Continue Reading California Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Law Prohibiting Arbitration Agreements As A Condition of Employment
Earlier today, District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, granted a temporary restraining order that temporarily prohibits the state of California from enforcing AB 51, a law that would prohibit companies in California from requiring arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.
Continue Reading California Court Temporarily Enjoins Enforcement Of Law Prohibiting Arbitration Agreements As A Condition of Employment
On December 6, 2019, a coalition of both national and state business organizations and trade associations filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The lawsuit seeks both a preliminary and permanent injunction against implementation and enforcement of the recently enacted California law that makes it unlawful for California employers to require employees to sign arbitration agreements, under certain circumstances.
Continue Reading Injunction Sought to Stop California’s Anti-Arbitration Law
Last week, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan granted Domino’s Pizza, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, holding that workers operating under the Domino’s brand must arbitrate their claims that the pizza chain made its franchises promise not to hire each other’s employees, then misled the public to believe no such agreement existed.
Continue Reading Domino’s Franchise Workers Compelled to Arbitration Through Franchisee Agreements
In Cordúa Restaurants, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 43 (2019), the National Labor Relations Board issued its first major decision following the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Epic Systems, addressing a number of issues of first impression and providing guidance on the permissible scope and implementation of class action waivers.
Continue Reading The NLRB Issues Major Class Action Waiver/Mandatory Arbitration Ruling