Employer Failed to Attach the Rules . . .
Petitioner Zullo sued her employer Inland Valley Publishing Co. (Inland), for wrongful termination. The superior court granted Inland's petition to compel arbitration and stayed the civil proceedings. Petitioner challenged the ruling by way of writ of mandate. Zullo v. Sup. Ct., 197 Cal.App.4th 477, 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 461 (2011).
The Court of Appeal granted the writ of mandate, finding the arbitration provision to be unenforceable:
“Inland's arbitration policy is a contract of adhesion, fails to give adequate notice of the arbitration rules that will apply, and allows Inland the full range of remedies and forums for resolution of whatever claims it might have against petitioner while limiting petitioner to binding arbitration of her claims against Inland. It also imposes strict time limits within which petitioner must respond to any arbitration-related communication without imposing similar requirements on Inland. Accordingly, the arbitration agreement is unconscionable and cannot be enforced as written.” Id. at 487.
Tip: A contract of adhesion need not be unconscionable. But to have the possibility of satisfying this court, the arbitration provision would need to attach the correct set of arbitration rules referred to, be symmetrical as to remedies and forums for employer and employee, and be fair and symmetrical regarding time limits for responding to arbitration-related communication.
Comments