Since the turn of the century, the judicial and legislative branches in California have added barrier after barrier to employers who have consciously sought arbitration; an oft-stated “preferred” method of resolution. The most draconian of these barriers became effective on January 1, 2020, with the enactment of Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.97 et seq. These statutes provide that if an employer fails to timely pay the fees for the arbitration, the employee would be entitled to either withdraw the claim from the arbitration and proceed in court or otherwise compel arbitration, whereby the employer would then be required pay the employee’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs related to the arbitration. On top of challenging jurisdiction, the employee could also be awarded monetary sanctions and the employer could be hit with an evidence sanction, terminating sanction, or even a judgment by default. At least employers could take a measure of solace in the fact that only the arbitration initiation fees would be due at the inception of the arbitration, with the arbitration hearing fees becoming due at a later date, usually much closer to the actual hearing. Now that too is scheduled to change as a result of Senate Bill 762.
SB 762, which becomes effective on January 1, 2022, amends Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.97 and § 1281.98 to require the arbitration provider to “immediately provide an invoice” for both the arbitration initiation fees and the arbitration hearing fees once the requirements necessary to initiate the arbitration have been met. Unless the arbitration agreement expressly provides the number of days to pay any required bees or costs, the employer would be required to pay the full invoice immediately and not later than 30 days after the invoice has been issued.
The ramifications are obvious. Most businesses will not want to pay the costs of the entire employment arbitration at the outset. This is because, unlike arbitrations between businesses in which each party contributes to the payment of the fees and costs equally, an employer is obligated to pay for the employee’s portion of the arbitration fees, except for the portion equivalent to the amount required to start a court proceeding. When shouldered by a single party, the costs of an entire arbitration can be quite significant and can include arbitrator fees of thousands of dollars for each day of the arbitration hearing. Before this law was passed, these employers could budget for the anticipated costs of a hearing that would take place months later. Senate Bill 762 all but removes that option. What was once intended as an “efficient and inexpensive method” for resolution is now limited to those select few who can afford to pay the price up front.
As noted above, there is one silver lining hidden in the text of the new bill. Employers may provide a “reasonable” time for payment in an “express provision in the arbitration agreement stating the number of days in which the parties to the arbitration must pay any required fees or costs.” By taking the affirmative step of specifying a time period, employers may be able to avoid a crippling upfront payment that would otherwise bar entry to arbitration. Employers are encouraged to seek advice from experienced employment attorneys who can carefully draft a code compliant arbitration agreement to overcome these legislative hurdles.
This blog is presented under protest by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. It is essentially the random thoughts and opinions of someone who lives in the trenches of the war that often is employment law–he/she may well be a little shell-shocked. So if you are thinking “woohoo, I just landed some free legal advice that will fix all my problems!”, think again. This is commentary, people, a sketchy overview of some current legal issue with a dose of humor, but commentary nonetheless; as if Dennis Miller were a lawyer…and still mildly amusing. No legal advice here; you would have to pay real US currency for that (unless you are my mom, and even then there are limits). But feel free to contact us with your questions and comments—who knows, we might even answer you. And if you want to spread this stuff around, feel free to do so, but please keep it in its present form (‘cause you can’t mess with this kind of poetry). Big news: Copyright 2021. All rights reserved; yep, all of them.
If you have any questions about this article, contact the writer directly, assuming he or she was brave enough to attach their name to it. If you have any questions regarding this blog or your life in general, contact Kelly O. Scott, Esq., commander in chief of this blog and Head Honcho (official legal title) of ECJ’s Employment Law Department.
- 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
- “Prejudice” No Longer an Element to Determine Waiver of Right to Compel Arbitration | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Minimum Wage Increases for 2025 | By: Kelly O. Scott
- New Law Prohibits Discrimination on the Basis of Possessing a Driver's License | By: Tanner Hosfield
- LA City Council Approves $30 Minimum Wage for Hotel and LAX Workers | By: Pooja Nair
- New Law Mandates That Employees Can No Longer Be Required to Use Vacation Before Receiving Paid Family Leave Benefits | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Employer Alert: New Whistleblower Poster Required | By: Joanne Warriner
- New Law Expands Posting Requirements Regarding Workers’ Compensation Rights | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- 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