Jenkins v. Dermatology Management

An arbitration agreement between a worker and employer was procedurally unconscionable where it was pre-signed by a representative of the employer who was not present when the worker received it, as a reasonable person in the worker’s position would have concluded that the agreement was a take-it-or-leave-it condition of employment that could not be modified or refused; a complaining party need not show it tried to negotiate standardized contract terms to establish procedural unconscionability. The agreement was substantively unconscionable where it required the worker to arbitrate all of her claims against the employer but exempted certain claims by the employer, the agreement shortened the statute of limitations for the worker’s claims, it required the parties to equally share the costs of arbitration, and it limited the scope of discovery. Jenkins v. Dermatology Management - filed Nov. 20, 2024, publication ordered Dec. 19, 2024, Second District, Div. Six Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3823 Full text click here >An arbitration agreement between a worker and employer was procedurally unconscionable where it was pre-signed by a representative of the employer who was not present when the worker received it, as a reasonable person in the worker’s position would have concluded that the agreement was a take-it-or-leave-it condition of employment that could not be modified or refused; a complaining party need not show it tried to negotiate standardized contract terms to establish procedural unconscionability. The agreement was substantively unconscionable where it required the worker to arbitrate all of her claims against the employer but exempted certain claims by the employer, the agreement shortened the statute of limitations for the worker’s claims, it required the parties to equally share the costs of arbitration, and it limited the scope of discovery. Jenkins v. Dermatology Management - filed Nov. 20, 2024, publication ordered Dec. 19, 2024, Second District, Div. Six Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3823 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1224//B333759.

Winston v. County of Los Angeles

Trial court erred in denying successful whistleblower retaliation litigant's Labor Code Section 1102.5(j) attorney fees' request when amended provision could be applied retroactively. READ MORE

Trujillo v. J-M Manufacturing - filed Dec. 2, 2024, Second District, Div. Eight

Civil Procedure Code of Civil Procedure §1281.98(a) was inapplicable where the parties did not submit to arbitration pursuant to any pre-dispute agreement; the drafting party for purposes of §1281.98 is the employer or company that drafted the pre-dispute arbitration agreement binding the employee. Trujillo v. J-M Manufacturing - filed Dec. 2, 2024, Second District, Div. Eight Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3783 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1224//B327111

Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills - filed Dec. 3, 2024, Second District, Div. One

Employment Law Equitable estoppel barred a worker from avoiding arbitration with corporate entities related to his direct employer, with whom he had an arbitration agreement, where the only possible liability for those other corporate entities was his theory that they were joint employers who shared in his direct employer’s legal obligations. Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills - filed Dec. 3, 2024, Second District, Div. One Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3793 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1224//B331083.