California Supreme Court to rule on arbitration forfeiture

To make sure employment arbitration proceedings move along quickly, a new California law says that “if the fees or costs to initiate an arbitration proceeding are not paid within 30 days after the due date, the drafting party . . . is in default of the arbitration and waives its right to compel arbitration.” This provision has been very strictly enforced and has caused the waiver of arbitration proceedings for the slightest delay beyond the 30-day limit.

Some recent cases have taken a different view. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) purports to nullify any arbitration agreement restriction that isn’t similarly applicable to any other contract agreement. The courts have nullified the 30-day rule and allowed the matters to remain in arbitration. The California Supreme Court has announced it will review the issue and resolve the conflict in the upcoming case Keeton v. Tesla.

Meanwhile, here’s a different case that shows how the statute can be stretched to ridiculous limits by what the court called unique circumstances.

Billing snafu leaves employer atwitter

Sarah Anoke and other current or former employees initiated arbitration proceedings with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) to resolve employment-related disputes with X (formerly Twitter). Their employment contracts with X provide for arbitration of such disputes.