Employees who ‘want’ arbitrations must prosecute them

In an employer-friendly decision, the California Court of Appeals interpreted an arbitration agreement as requiring employees, not their employer, to initiate arbitration proceedings. In the agreement at issue, the employees and their employer explicitly agreed to pursue all employment-related claims in arbitration rather than through a jury trial, and they further agreed that the party that “wants” arbitration must initiate the proceedings. The court emphasized that arbitration agreements, like all contracts, must be viewed as a whole rather than as isolated provisions, and therefore, it held that the party that “wants” arbitration must be the employee who wanted to pursue a claim, not the employer who merely wanted to enforce its right to use the agreed venue.

Although this decision is specific to the arbitration agreement at issue, it does provide clarity to how courts may interpret similar provisions. It relieves similarly situated employers of the burden of “initiating” arbitration proceedings that their employees wish to pursue.

Employees file class action

In June 2021, a group of employees filed a wage and hour class action against their employer, ACE American Insurance Company (ACE), claiming it failed to provide them with all of the benefits owed to them, including overtime pay and meal and rest periods. They also filed their claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), seeking to represent all “similarly situated” California employees.