California Mediation and Arbitration

Unconscionability: Second District, Div. 8 Holds That Illegible Contract Is Fair, And Therefore Not Unconscionable

Majority Of Panel Holds That Substantive Unconscionability Was Missing. Justice Stratton Dissents. 

        Writing for the majority, Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. explains that the above contract is enforceable, requiring the plaintiff employee to arbitrate her dispute. Though the document is manifestly illegible, Justice Wiley concludes that the contract is fair. Therefore, there is no "substantive unconscionability." And as we know, California law requires both procedural and substantive unconscionability for a contract to be unenforceable on the basis of unconscionability. Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc., B314490 (2/8   4/21/23) (Wiley, Harutunian; Stratton, dissenting). 

        Justice Maria E. Stratton dissents.  She writes, " '[W]atering down' unconscionability analysis is not what I have in mind. Acknowledging the obvious is my intention. Holding a signatory to an illegible contract that is also as prolix as this one strains the concepts of mutuality, fairness and common sense. If an employee literally cannot read the contract, how is that substantively fair?"

        COMMENT: Perhaps a simpler approach than "unconscionability," which requires satisfying two prongs, is a contract formation approach. Was there ever a meeting of the minds? Was there consent to the terms of the contract, when the contract was illegible and prolix? Justice Arthur Gilbert has written, "An arbitration clause in a contract is invalid because the clause is as inconspicuous as a frog in a thicket of water lilies." Domestic Linen Supply, Inc. v. L J T Flowers, Inc., 58 Cal.App.5th 180 (2020). Here, the job seeker wouldn't see the frog or the water lilies, just a typographic mess. Thus, in addition to the two-prong unconscionability analysis, arbitration clauses can also be analyzed under a contract formation analysis.

        Suppose the prospective employee had said she wanted to come back the next day when she could read what was actually written. And the employer had replied that if she wanted to go to work, she should sign. So she signed. Then the court could have said she signed because she wanted to start work. But since that was simply evidence of additional "procedural unconscionability," everything was copacetic. Or is it?

        This case stretches to the breaking point the legal fiction that agreements to arbitrate are always a matter of consent.

Same Outcome In A Tandem Case: Mohammad Basith v. Lithia Motors, Inc., B316098 (2/8  4/21/23) (Wiley, Harutunian; Stratton, dissenting).

        In Basith, a tandem case involving a contract substantially similar to the one in the Fuentes case, the Second District, Div. 8, reaches the same conclusion that the arbitration provision is valid and enforceable. It's another split decision, with Wiley and Harutunian in the majority, and Stratton again dissenting.

        Here, we get bit of policy to justify the outcome: "Our holding is that, unless we are to imperil the vast online world of take-it-or-leave-it contracts, substantive unconscionability must retain meaningful independent content. For that reason, the contracts here and in Fuentes are valid and enforceable, despite their procedural unconscionability."

        COMMENT: While it is true that the contracts are substantially the same, there is a factual difference between Basith and Fuentes. "We note at the outset that this case poses no issue of small or unreadable font. It is a striking coincidence that, not only do we encounter substantially similar form contracts in two simultaneous and otherwise unrelated cases, but also that font size should be a dominating issue in one case—Fuentes—and entirely absent as an issue in Basith’s case. The difference stems from the media: in Fuentes, the contract was printed only on paper, and was printed in a largely unreadable way, whereas Basith’s main contract was online."

        Nevertheless, Justice Wiley explains that a complaint about prolix legalese and a complaint about font size are just examples of procedural unconscionability, not substantive unconscionability. In short, the court majority does not recognize a situation in which the employer drafts a contract and thus knows its terms, and an employee is unable to read the illegible contract, as being one-sided and substantively unfair. This appears to be dictum in Basith, but it helps to further explain the majority's thinking in Fuentes, where font size and prolixity were issues, not to mention the poor condition of the tiny font.

 

 

PAGA: Second District Div. 4 Holds Employee Has Standing To Bring PAGA Representative Claims After Individual Claim Is Sent To Arbitration

Court Follows Opening Provided By Justice Sonia Sotomayor's Concurrence In Viking Cruises v. Moriana.

        Following the Supreme Court opinion in Viking Cruises v. Moriani, there could be no disagreement that employee Million Seifu's individual PAGA claim against Lyft for personal Labor Code violations he suffered could be arbitrated. But that left the hot issue to be decided: whether he had standing, after his individual claim had been directed to arbitration, to bring a representative claim for other employees. 

            In Milton Seifu v. Lyft, Inc., B301774 (2/4  3/30/23) (Collins, Currey, Stone), the court explained that Seifu did have standing: "We conclude that we are not bound by the analysis of PAGA standing set forth in Viking River. As Justice Sotomayor recognized in her concurring opinion, PAGA standing is a matter of state law that must be decided by California courts. Until we have guidance from the California Supreme Court, our review of PAGA and relevant state decisional authority leads us to conclude that a plaintiff is not stripped of standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims simply because his or her individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration." The court remanded to the trial court to decide whether the representative claims should be stayed pending arbitration of the individual.

         The court relied on the California Supreme Court case Kim v. Reins International, 9 Cal.5th 13 (2020) to reach its conclusion that Seifu had standing under California law. The law is remedial and given a liberal interpretation to effect the Legislature's purpose of enforcing California's labor laws. We have blogged about other California cases that reached the same conclusion about standing: Tricia Galarasa v. Dolgen California, LLC, post dated 3/8/23, and Tom Piplack v. In-N-Out Burgers, post dated 3/20/23. We're eager to see how this turns out when the California Supreme Court decides  Adolph v. Uber Technologies.

PAGA, FAA Preemption: Fourth District, Div. 3 Holds Arbitration Of Individual PAGA Claims Can Be Compelled, But Not Representative Claims

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas Longhorn.        

Clinton & Charles Robertson from Del Rio, Texas & San Marcos. Wikipedia.                                       Between Scylla and Charybdis. Wikipedia.

Between Horns Of A Dilemma And Between Scylla And Charybdis.

        In a PAGA case, the Court of Appeal, employing mixed salad metaphors, explains that it is between the horns of a dilemma and between Scylla and Charybdis.  Tom Piplack v. In-N-Out Burgers, G061098 (4/3  3/7/23) (Sanchez, Bedsworth, Delaney). This is a PAGA case in which the Court of Appeal held that plaintiff Piplack's individual PAGA claims could be arbitrated and plaintiff Sherrod's individual PAGA claims had to be sent back to the trial court for consideration of Sherrod's argument that Sherrod had been underage when he agreed to arbitrate. However, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs' representative claims could be litigated.

        Returning to horns, dilemmas, Scylla and Charybdis, quandaries, plights, puzzles, and predicaments, Justice Sanchez explains that the court must follow SCOTUS's ruling in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, ___ U.S. ___ [142 S.Ct. 1906] (2022) (Viking), holding that Iskanian's ruling that PAGA claims could not be forced into arbitration was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. But Viking only requires this result as to individual PAGA claims. Viking did not preempt the portion of Iskanian prohibiting waiver of the right to pursue representative PAGA actions. Yet Viking apparently concluded that if the individual PAGA claim was arbitrated, then no one was left with standing under California law to bring the representative claim, even if the right to litigate the representative claim was not preempted.

        Standing to bring the representative claim is an issue of state law that Justice Sanchez explains was decided in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 73 (Kim) (2020). Because Kim is a recent case decided by the California Supreme Court, and because SCOTUS does not decide state law, Justice Sanchez resolved the court's dilemma by following Kim on the issue of state law standing. Kim has only two requirements for a plaintiff to have standing to bring a representative action: “The plain language of [Labor Code] section 2699(c) has only two requirements for PAGA standing. The plaintiff must be an aggrieved employee, that is, someone ‘who was employed by the alleged violator’ and ‘against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.’” (quoting Kim).

        In short, the court followed "Viking on FAA preemption and Kim on PAGA standing." 

 

                                                                                                                                                                

Unable To Apply "Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act" Retroactively, Fourth Dist. Div. 3 Nevertheless Finds Arbitration Provisions Unconscionable

Panel Is Very Critical Of Confidentiality Provisions In Sexual Harassment Dispute With Arbitration Provision.

        Some California Appellate panels and justices make it a practice to neatly summarize the opinion in the first paragraph. I like that practice. Our next case, in which the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and enter a new order denying the motion to compel arbitration, made excellent use of that practice in a 36-page slip opinion. Cassandra Murrey v. Orange County Superior Court; General Electric Company et al (real parties in interest), G061329 (4/3  1/30/23) (O'Leary, Bedsworth, Marks). So let's let the panel, in an opinion penned by Justice O'Leary, speak:

        "In March 2022, President Joseph R. Biden signed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the Act) (9 U.S.C. §§ 401, 402), representing the first major amendment of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) since its inception nearly 100 years ago. This legislation, having bipartisan support, voids predispute arbitration clauses in cases, such as the one before us now, involving sexual harassment allegations. We regret that this new legislation does not apply retroactively to Casandra Murrey’s complaint filed in March 2021. Nevertheless, we will consider Murrey’s writ petition because the highly secretive and one-sided provisions of her arbitration agreement make it both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The agreement is factually distinguishable from existing case authority upholding employment adhesion contracts and exemplifies why the legislature drafted House Bill No. 4445. We conclude the trial court erred by enforcing an unconscionably void arbitration agreement."

        This case is particularly interesting for its critical analysis about confidentiality language in arbitration agreements in sexual harassment disputes. In this case, "Murrey was forced to agree she would not 'publish or disseminate' the arbitration award." Justice O'Leary wrote, " GE’s confidentiality provision serves no purpose other than to benefit GE. Future employees cannot take advantage of findings in past arbitrations or prove a pattern of discrimination and/or retaliation." Here, the confidentiality provision weighed heavily in finding the arbitration agreement "substantively unconscionable." Ordinarily confidentiality agreements are upheld, but it is clear that the court viewed such requirements to be  onerous in the circumstances of a sexual harassment dispute. 

        We note California Code of Civil Procedure § 1001 prohibits a provision within a settlement agreement that prevents or restricts the disclosure of factual information related to a claim filed in a civil action or a complaint filed in an administrative action. The Murrey case does not involve a settlement agreement.

Scope Of Arbitration Agreement Did Not Encompass Pre-Employment Disputes

Court of Appeal Also Held That Trial Court Properly Declined To Require Arbitration Of  FEHA Claim For "Public Injunction."

        Defendant and Appellant Tesla, Inc. -- you've probably heard of the company -- appealed from denial of Tesla's motion to compel arbitration as to employees Chatman and Hall, plaintiffs. Marcus Vaughn et al v. Tesla, Inc., A164053 (1/5   1/4/23) (Simons, Burns, Wiseman). Plaintiffs alleged that they and other Black employees had been discriminated and harassed while working at Tesla.

        The wrinkle to this case is that, while an arbitration agreement provided all "disputes, claims, or causes of action, in law or equity, arising from or relating to your employment, or the termination of your employment, will be resolved, to the fullest extent permitted by law by final, binding and confidential arbitration . . . ", the agreement did not cover pre-employment claims. And Chatman and Hall claimed some claims arose pre-employment, at a time when a hiring agency had provided them as workers to Tesla. So the trial court concluded that Chatman and Hall were required to arbitrate claims after they became employees, but not before. 

        The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying arbitration in part and allowing arbitration in part. The Court also agreed that the trial court properly declined to mandate arbitration of plaintiffs' claim for a public injunction for two reasons: "First, we hold that injunctions sought under the Fair Employment  Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, §§ 12900 et seq.) may be considered 'public injunctions.' Second, we rule the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), as interpreted in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) ___ U.S. ___ [142 S.Ct. 1906, 213 L.Ed.2d 179] (Viking River), does not preempt the California rule prohibiting waiver of the right to seek such injunctions."

Employment, Uncionscionability, Delegation: Fourth Dist. Div. 3 Agrees With Trial Court That Arbitration Agreement Is Unconscionable

Ambiguous And Unconscionable.

        The threshold question in Bernell Gregory Beco v. Fast Auto Loans, Inc., G059382 (4/3  12/14/22) (Moore, Bedsworth, Sanchez) was whether the court or the arbitrator should determine the issue of arbitrability. The arbitration agreement included a delegation provision stating that covered: "any dispute concerning the arbitrability of any such controversy or claims." The Court of Appeal held that the provision was ambiguous at best, because "arbitrability" here could refer to deciding to the arbitrability of a substantive claim, rather than to who should decide the issue of arbitrability. Therefore, the delegation of the question "who should decide" was not "clear and unmistakable," the standard for finding a valid delegation of decision-making authority to the arbitrator. Nor did incorporation by reference of AAA rules concerning arbitrability help here, because the the court concluded that Mr. Beco, an employee of a payday lender¹ who earned $13.50 per hours, was not a legally sophisticated person who should be charged with knowledge of the incorporated rules.

        The court's analysis that the arbitration provisions were procedurally and substantively "unconscionable" is unremarkable. Well, perhaps the following is worth remarking: the court found that a three-month period allotted to the employee to provide notice of a claim was "particularly onerous."

¹A US government website defines "payday loan" as follows: "While there is no set definition of a payday loan, it is usually a short-term, high cost loan, generally for $500 or less, that is typically due on your next payday. Depending on your state law, payday loans may be available through storefront payday lenders or online."

Arbitration, PAGA, FAA, Delegation: Second District Div. 8 Holds That Viking River Cruises Requires Reversal Of Order That Denied Motion To Compel Arbitration

Court Holds That Viking River Cruises Requires Enforcement Of Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreement.

        Judge Harutunian explains that the trial court "understandably" denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration based on a rule in California that "predispute agreements to arbitrate PAGA claims are unenforceable." He concludes: "We hold that this rule cannot survive the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) ___U.S.___ [142 S.Ct. 1906] (Viking River)." Sylvester Lewis v. Simplified Labor Staffing, B312871 (2/8  12/5/22) (Harutunian, Stratton, Grimes).  

        However, because the AAA rules delegate the issue to the arbitrator, the arbitrator, rather than the court, must decide the scope of the arbitration agreement, specifically, whether non-individual PAGA claims are arbitrable in the same way that individual PAGA claims are arbitrable.

        COMMENT: The opinion rejects what Judge Harutunian describes as the "State-must-consent" rule. Cases that held pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate PAGA claims were unenforceable reasoned that the PAGA dispute was between the employer and the state, and thus the employee could not agree to arbitrate until a dispute arose and the employee was "delegated" by the state to pursue the PAGA claim on behalf of the state. But Viking River allows the employer and employee to enter into a pre-dispute arbitration agreement to arbitrate the employee's PAGA claim. So Viking River destroys the reasoning behind the "State-must-consent" rule, though it does not explicitly name such a rule. In any case, Judge Harutunian concludes that the rule is preempted by the FAA, because state law that withdraws the power to enforce an arbitration agreement is preempted.

Unconscionability, Severance, PAGA, Claim Preclusion: Second District Div 7 Holds Arbitration Agreement, Permeated With Substantive Unconscionability, Is Unenforceable

Trial Judge No. 1 Found The Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, No. 2 Found It Enforceable, And Court Of Appeal Agreed With No. 2.

        Chris Mills sued his former employer for disability discrimination and related employment claims. Employer FSG successfully enforced an arbitration agreement, the trial judge holding unconscionable provisions in the agreement were severable. An appeal followed, but that appeal is not the subject of this post. Mills also filed a class action lawsuit for labor law violations, including PAGA claims, and FSG again moved to compel arbitration, but in front of a different trial judge. Despite the fact that the arbitration provision under consideration was the same in both lawsuits, the second judge found the arbitration provision to be permeated by unconscionability, and refused to enforce it. The second judge's order is the subject of FSG's appeal. Chris Mills v. Facility Solutions Group, Inc., B313943 (2/7  11/1/22) (Feuer, Perluss, Segal).

        Of course, FSG argued claim or issue preclusion required trial judge No. 2 to accept the ruling of trial judge No. 1, who found the arbitration agreement to be enforceable. But there had been no final adjudication on the merits, because an order granting a motion to compel arbitration is not appealable, and review of the order must await appeal of the judgment confirming an arbitration award. [Note: our sidebar category is collateral estoppel/res judicata, admittedly no longer the favored terms of art, having been replaced by claim and issue preclusion.]

        The agreement, being a condition of employment, was adhesive and had aspects of procedural unconscionability. The arbitration agreement was also substantively unconscionable because it unfairly allocated costs and attorney fees to the employee, limited discovery, improperly barred tolling of the statute of limitations, and included an invalid waiver of representative PAGA claims.

        The last point, regarding invalid waiver of representative PAGA claims, is interesting in light of the SCOTUS ruling in Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, holding that California law invalidating contractual waivers of the right to assert representative claims under PAGA is preempted by the FAA, insofar as PAGA precludes division of actions into individual and representative claims. Because the court in Mills, however, did not require Mills to arbitrate, there was no need to divide his individual and representative claims: both could be litigated. Justice Feuer sides with Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion in Moriana that even if the employee is required to arbitrate individual claims, under California law, the employee still has standing to bring a representative action. However, Justice Feuer does not need to decide the issue of standing, since Mills was not required to arbitrate.

        COMMENT: While acknowledging that there is no per se rule that severance can never be used if there is more than one item of substantive unconscionability, Justice Feuer explains why, as a matter of policy, the court should not sever and rewrite the contract here: "[U]pholding this type of agreement with multiple unconscionable terms would create an incentive for an employer to draft a one-sided arbitration agreement in the hope employees would not challenge the unlawful provisions, but if they do, the court would simply modify the agreement to include the bilateral terms the employer should have included in the first place."

Arbitration, Employment, FAA Preemption: Employers Must Strictly Comply With Requirement To Pay Arbitration Fees By Statutory Deadline

Substantial Compliance With CCP § 1281.97 Just Won't Cut It.

        In July 2022, the California Court of Appeal ruled in Sunny Gallo v. Wood Ranch that Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.97 is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. The court reasoned that 1281.97, which requires  the drafting party  -- usually the employer -- to pay arbitration fees and costs within 30 days after the due date, does not thwart arbitration, but rather encourages promptly proceeding with arbitration. See our post dated 8/1/22 on Gallo. In Rosa Espinoza v. Superior Court,  B314914 (2/1  9/27/22) (Bendix, Rothschild, Chaney), the court, agreeing with Gallo, held there was no federal preemption of California's statutory rule. 

        However, the court went one step further in Espinoza. The court held that substantial compliance, unintentional nonpayment, and absence of prejudice did not excuse the employer from making timely payment. Thus, it is not enough to pay fees and costs. Rather, fees and costs must be paid within the statutory deadline, or else the employer will waive the right to enforce the arbitration agreement.

        COMMENT. Here's one consequence that the employer may not have thought about. If failure to pay within the statutory deadline constitutes a material breach of the agreement, the employer might also get stuck paying the employee's attorney fees.

Arbitration, PAGA: 4th Dist. Div. 2 Holds That Losing Non-PAGA Claims In Arbitration Does Not Preclude Litigation Of PAGA Claims

Modified Opinion Addresses Viking River Cruises v. Moriana.

        In a partially published and modified opinion, the Court of Appeal holds that an employee's loss of Labor Code violation claims in arbitration does not preclude her from bringing a PAGA claim that the trial court had stayed. The basis for this ruling is that the plaintiff was acting in different capacities, bringing Labor Code claims on her own behalf in arbitration, and acting in a different and representative capacity in the PAGA action. The PAGA action, which seeks civil penalties as a remedy, "is fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public and not to benefit private parties." Eleni Gavriiloglou v. Prime Healthcare Management, Inc., No. E076832 (4/2  9/20/22) (Ramirez, Slough, Fields).

        COMMENT: The original opinion did not address Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, the subject of our 6/19/22 post. The modified opinion seems to suggest that in Viking River, SCOTUS didn't really understand California law: "It . . .  held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state-law rule that precludes the arbitration of an individual PAGA claim separately from a representative PAGA claim. .... In Prime’s view, Viking River 'explicitly recognizes an individual claim under PAGA . . . .' This is mere wordplay. What the Supreme Court called, as shorthand, an 'individual PAGA claim' is not actually a PAGA claim at all. It would exist even if PAGA had never been enacted. It is what we are calling, more accurately, an individual Labor Code claim."

        We note one difference between Gavriiloglou case and Viking River. In Gavriiloglou, the issue in the published part of the opinion is whether the arbitrator's award denying non-PAGA claims precluded the PAGA claims, and the court held that it did not. In Viking River, the issue was different. SCOTUS held that the employee could be compelled to arbitrate PAGA individual claims (which Justice Ramirez now says are really better described as Labor Code claims).

         Look forward to ongoing confusion about standing to bring representative PAGA claims in California in cases where there are mandatory arbitration provisions.