Arbitration Agreements And Employment

While the Court of Appeal concluded that the contract was a contract and that the determination of damages was ruthless, the Court of Appeal decided that the balance of the arbitration agreement should be applied. The California Supreme Court then granted reconsideration. The California Supreme Court has held that if “arbitration allows an employee to defend his or her legal rights,” claims that are made under FEHA in California are indeed suitable for arbitration. In summary, the Tribunal held that the arbitration clause had to meet certain minimum requirements to allow the application of an employment agreement (in particular with regard to the rights to discrimination under the FEHA). These include: (1) not limiting otherwise available remedies; (2) a provision relating to “appropriate discoveries”; (3) the obligation for the arbitrator to “make a written arbitration decision indicating, at all times, the essential findings and conclusions on which the arbitral award is based”; and (4) the prohibition of any language requiring the worker to bear any type of costs that the worker would not have to bear if he brought an action before the courts (i.e. the arbitrator`s indemnity). The court also considered the doctrine of scruples and whether ruthless provisions could be removed or restricted in order to avoid an unscrupulous outcome. The court refused to remove the ruthless provisions and annulled the entire agreement. Recently, the California Supreme Court considered the same subject in Armendariz v. .

. .