CDF Partners Nancy "Niki" Lubrano and Brian E. Cole II co-authored the article "Pros and Cons as California Employers Rethink Forced Arbitration" for Law360 on March 23, 2023.
Excerpt:
Many California employers previously reluctant to roll out mandatory arbitration agreements given uncertainties in developing case law are now reconsidering this decision.
This comes on the heels of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's February decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, blocking California's bar to mandatory arbitration agreements,[1] and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Viking River Cruises Inc. v. Moriana last June,[2] effectively permitting arbitration of individual Private Attorneys General Act claims.
California employers with existing arbitration agreements are, or at least should be, reviewing and likely revising existing agreements to comport with recent case law to ensure continued enforcement.
In wage and hour litigation, one of the primary benefits of having an arbitration agreement is the ability to include a class and representative action waiver, thereby requiring an employee to arbitrate his or her individual wage and hour claims, in addition to other purported employment-related disputes — except sexual harassment and assault —in arbitration rather than facing defense of alleged class action or representative and PAGA claims in court.
The enforceability of such waivers is an incredibly important and valuable shield for California employers who are faced with class and PAGA claims filed in court.
That said, and as previously discussed, there are pros and cons to arbitration agreements. Here are some of the pros and cons that employers must consider carefully:
Click HERE to read the full article: