The Exception To Arbitration Simply Restates Existing Law.
The California Supreme Court has ruled that an employment agreement providing for arbitration of disputes, but authorizing the parties to seek preliminary injunctive relief in the superior court, does not make the agreement one-sided and substantively unconscionable, even if employers are more likely to seek injunctive relief than employees. Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc., S208345 (Sup. Ct. March 28, 2016) (Kruger, J.). Here, the contract simply restates existing law, which has a carve-out for preliminary injunctive relief. Code Civ. Proc., section 1281.8(b).
We posted earlier about the judgment of the Court of Appeal on December 21, 2012. The Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
COMMENT: Note that here, the clause excepted preliminary injunctive relief from arbitration, and this restates existing law. A provision that excepted injunctive relief from arbitration would not restate existing law. Compare Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc., G050438 (4/3 Feb. 26, 2016) (Aronson, Bedsworth, Ikola) (arbitration provision resulting in substantive unconscionability included allowing the employer, but not the employee, to seek injunctive relief in court) about which we posted on February 28, 2016.