![Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater](assets/images-t1724967491/624.jpeg)
Arbitration agreements, at their core, are contracts. As with any contract, there must be “mutuality” or, more colloquially, a “meeting of the minds” on what the contract is intended to encompass. For this reason, employment arbitration agreements are typically limited in scope and drafted to cover only claims or causes of action arising from or related to the relationship between the employee and employer.
A recent case involving the University of Southern California illustrates the importance of careful drafting. An issue in Cook v. University of Southern California was whether an arbitration agreement of infinite duration could be enforced by an employer for any and all claims, irrespective of whether the claims subject to the agreement arose from the employment relationship. The agreement emphasized that the university and the employee agreed to the resolution by arbitration of all claims, “whether or not arising out of Employee’s University employment, remuneration or termination, that Employee may have against the University or any of its related entities…”
Both the trial court and Court of Appeal held that such an overbroad arbitration agreement was “unconscionable” and could not be enforced for several reasons. The most significant among them was the court’s disapproval of the overbreadth of time and scope. In decrying the scope of the agreement, the court opined:
If USC had been concerned about capturing termination or retaliation claims related to Cook’s employment, it simply could have limited the scope of the agreement to claims arising out of or relating to her employment or termination. If it difficult to see how it is justified to expect Cook – as a condition of her employment at the university – to give up the right to ever sue a USC employee in court for defamatory statements or other claims that are completely unrelated to Cook’s employment.
The unlimited duration of the agreement fared no better. The court found that the arbitration agreement specifically provides that it will survive unless and until the employee and the university’s president specifically terminate the agreement in a writing, signed by both parties, which expressly mentions the arbitration agreement; an express term of duration. Such a provision further weighed in favor of the agreement being deemed “unconscionable.” Had no provision been mentioned regarding the duration of the agreement, it would have been presumed to be “terminable at will”; a finding which would have favored enforcement of the arbitration agreement.
Cook v. University of Southern California thus serves as an important cautionary tale for employers. California courts routinely and carefully scrutinize nearly everything in an employment arbitration agreement. Employers should therefore tailor their arbitration agreements sufficiently so that there is no question as to what claims could or would be covered.
- Counsel
Jared W. Slater is a Counsel in ECJ's Litigation and Employment Departments.
Jared's practice focuses on defending labor and employment actions, including claims for wage and hour violations, harassment, and discrimination both ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
- The Battle for Supremacy: Federal Arbitration Act v. California Arbitration Act | By: Jared W. Slater
- Another Blow to E-Signed Arbitration Agreements in California By: Jared W. Slater
- Employer Reminder: Local Minimum Wage Increases on July 1, 2024 and Current Mileage Rates | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Governor Signs Law Exempting Restaurants From New Hidden Fees Law | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Workplace Violence Prevention Plans and Trainings Must be Implemented by July 1 | By: Jared Slater
- Department of Labor Revises Independent Contractor Test | By: Pooja S. Nair
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014