9th Circuit invalidates law barring mandatory employment arbitration

  • 📰 sdut
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 31 sec. here
  • 2 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 16%
  • Publisher: 95%

Law Law Headlines News

Law Law Latest News,Law Law Headlines

My last column focused on a California Court of Appeal ruling that confirmed it is easier for an employer to enforce a pre-dispute arbitration agreement when the employee signs the agreement in his or her own handwriting rather than with an electronic signature.

In addition to having its employees sign the arbitration agreement in their own handwriting, the employer in that case expressly gave applicants and employees the option not to sign the arbitration agreement and still obtain or retain employment. I suggested employers consider giving employees the express right to opt out until resolution of a pending challenge to California’s statute prohibiting employers from requiring employees to sign pre-dispute arbitration agreements .

The FAA, however, makes any written arbitration agreement enforceable unless the agreement offends general principles of substantive and procedural fairness applicable to other kinds of contracts, such as rules barring agreements limiting substantive rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has said the FAA embodies “a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary.

The 9th Circuit majority rejected that gambit. AB 51 plainly “disfavors the formation of agreements that have the essential terms of an arbitration agreement.”

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 5. in LAW

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines