Ogletree Deakins: California Court Interprets Vague Language in Arbitration Agreement in Favor of Employee | Practical Law

Ogletree Deakins: California Court Interprets Vague Language in Arbitration Agreement in Favor of Employee | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses the California Court of Appeals' recent decision in Rebolledo v. Tilly's Inc. In this decision, the court held that an employer cannot compel arbitration of a wage and hour claim when the language in the parties' arbitration agreement expressly excluded "any matter within the jurisdiction of the California Labor Commissioner." The appellate court agreed with the trial court that this language removes from arbitration any claim that could have been decided by the California Labor Commission, including statutory wage claims, regardless of whether the claim was actually filed with the labor commissioner.

Ogletree Deakins: California Court Interprets Vague Language in Arbitration Agreement in Favor of Employee

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Published on 28 Aug 2014California, United States
This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses the California Court of Appeals' recent decision in Rebolledo v. Tilly's Inc. In this decision, the court held that an employer cannot compel arbitration of a wage and hour claim when the language in the parties' arbitration agreement expressly excluded "any matter within the jurisdiction of the California Labor Commissioner." The appellate court agreed with the trial court that this language removes from arbitration any claim that could have been decided by the California Labor Commission, including statutory wage claims, regardless of whether the claim was actually filed with the labor commissioner.