Just A Matter Of Contract Interpretation
Judges must relax a little when they can say, as does Justice O’Leary, the author of the next opinion, “The sole issue presented in this appeal is simply a matter of contract interpretation.” Rebolledo v. Tilly’s, Inc., G048625 (4th Dist. Div. 3 July 8, 2014) (O’Leary, Ikola, Thompson) (unpublished).
Plaintiff Rebolledo brought claims against her employer for failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay wages upon termination, failure to itemize wage statements, unfair competition, and enforcement of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The employer brought a motion to compel arbitration, and appealed when its motion was denied.
A 2001 Employment Agreement provided for arbitration, except for “matters governed by the California Labor Commissioner.” A 2004 Employment Agreement excluded from arbitration “any matter within the jurisdiction of the California Labor Commissioner.”. A 2005 Employment Agreement did not include an exception to arbitration.
The Court of Appeal sorted this out as follows: (1) Plaintiff’s claims were “within the jurisdiction of the California Labor Commissioner” if they were claims potentially within the jurisdiction of the California Labor Commissioner, regardless of whether they were ever brought before the Commissioner; (2) because the 2001 Employment Agreement required three signatures to amend it, and the 2005 agreement did not have those signatures, the 2005 agreement did not remove the exception to arbitration in the 2001 agreement.
The order denying arbitration was affirmed.
Comments