Choice-Of-Law Provision Is Interpreted To Exclude Special Rules Limiting The Authority Of Arbitrators Where The Federal Arbitration Act Governed The Agreement.
California Labor Code section 229 provides that wage disputes "may be maintained without regard to the existence of any private agreement to arbitrate." In Bravo v. RADC Enterprises, Inc., B289506 (2/8 3/29/19) (Wiley, Grimes, Adams), the trial court had interpreted a California choice-of-law provision to mean that a store manager could avoid arbitrating his wage dispute with his employer. On appeal, the Court reversed the part of the order denying arbitration of claims (except for a PAGA claim that did not need to be arbitrated).
As the Court of Appeal noted, the "first textual clue" that the parties intended to arbitrate was in the title of the parties' agreement: "'ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.' This agreement is for arbitration and not against it."
So how was California law to be applied? The Court interpreted the California choice-of-law provision to mean that California substantive law principles were to be applied, but that "special rules limiting the authority of arbitrators" were to be excluded.
Comments