Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Whistleblowers and other workers fired in violation of public policy are entitled to the same basic arbitration protections as employees who claim their statutory rights were violated. So ruled the California Supreme Court on Thursday in a decision that also struck down certain appellate arbitration provisions as unconscionable and reaffirmed the fact that employers must bear the costs of mandatory arbitrations. The decision, Little v. Auto Stiegler Inc., 03 C.D.O.S. 1684, was hailed by plaintiffs’ attorneys as a victory for workers as it extends the reach of a 2000 supreme court ruling that established minimal standards for mandatory predispute arbitration agreements. In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83, the court held that such agreements must allow for arbitrations with sufficient discovery, that entail a written decision and that do not cap the amount of damages. Writing for a 4-3 majority Thursday, Justice Carlos Moreno said that these basic standards do not apply solely to claims alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, as was the case in Armendariz. Whistleblower protections, which are in the public interest, are unwaivable and cannot be contravened by a private agreement, the court found. “An employment agreement that required employees to waive claims that they were terminated in violation of public policy would itself be contrary to public policy,” wrote Moreno. Dissenting on this point were Justices Janice Rogers Brown, Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin. The case involved Alexander Little, a service manager at an automobile dealership. Little alleges he was terminated for investigating and reporting warranty fraud. Like many auto dealership employees, Little had signed a contract agreeing to take any disputes to arbitration. The agreement contained a clause that any arbitration award over $50,000 could be appealed to a second arbitrator. All seven justices agreed that this appeal provision, with its $50,000 threshold, was unconscionable, since it tilted the table in the defendant’s favor. “Each of these provisions is geared towards giving the arbitral defendant a substantial opportunity to overturn a sizeable arbitration award,” wrote Justice Moreno. The court did not nullify the entire arbitration agreement, however. Instead it held that the overall agreement was still valid once the appellate provision had been removed. Christopher Hoffman, an Orange County, Calif., attorney for the defendant, cast the decision as a victory for employers since the arbitration agreement at issue was held to be enforceable in its modified form.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.