09.02.2015 Views

Drafting an Enforceable Mandatory Arbitration Agreement ... - ALI CLE

Drafting an Enforceable Mandatory Arbitration Agreement ... - ALI CLE

Drafting an Enforceable Mandatory Arbitration Agreement ... - ALI CLE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

40 The Practical Lawyer December 2000<br />

revise their arbitration clauses. This article <strong>an</strong>alyzes<br />

the holding in Armendariz v. Foundation<br />

Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 6 P.3d 669 (Cal.<br />

2000), <strong>an</strong>d provides practical guid<strong>an</strong>ce on how<br />

to draft <strong>an</strong> enforceable agreement.<br />

WHAT IS A MANDATORY PRE-DISPUTE<br />

ARBITRATION AGREEMENT • M<strong>an</strong>datory<br />

pre-dispute arbitration agreements are contracts,<br />

signed before a dispute arises (often at<br />

the outset of employment), requiring the parties<br />

to submit their claims <strong>an</strong>d conflicts to <strong>an</strong> arbitrator<br />

rather th<strong>an</strong> a court of law. For the purpose<br />

of this article, they will be referred to as “m<strong>an</strong>datory<br />

arbitration agreements.” Before the<br />

Armendariz case, there was some question<br />

whether or not employers could require employees<br />

to sign these contracts as a condition of<br />

employment, <strong>an</strong>d, if so, what provisions the<br />

contracts could contain. Now, at least under<br />

California law, it is clear that employers may<br />

ask their workers to sign the agreement on a<br />

“take-it-or-leave-it” basis, subject to certain specific<br />

requirements.<br />

WHAT MAKES A MANDATORY ARBITRA-<br />

TION AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE •<br />

The gist of the Armendariz decision is that employers<br />

c<strong>an</strong> require workers to sign arbitration<br />

agreements but they c<strong>an</strong>’t abuse their superior<br />

bargaining power to make the employee give<br />

up certain rights. Specifically, the employer<br />

c<strong>an</strong>’t take adv<strong>an</strong>tage of its bargaining power in<br />

a way goes beyond merely choosing <strong>an</strong> arbitral<br />

forum for dispute resolution <strong>an</strong>d instead drastically<br />

limits <strong>an</strong> employee’s (but not the employer’s)<br />

options <strong>an</strong>d remedies.<br />

Using four disputed out of five total factors<br />

derived from the Supreme Court’s ruling in<br />

Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson L<strong>an</strong>e Corp., 500 U.S. 20<br />

(1991), the Armendariz court reviewed the m<strong>an</strong>datory<br />

arbitration agreement <strong>an</strong>d found it unconscionable<br />

<strong>an</strong>d unenforceable. Those four<br />

disputed factors were:<br />

• Limitation of remedies;<br />

• Adequate discovery;<br />

• Written arbitration award <strong>an</strong>d judicial review;<br />

<strong>an</strong>d<br />

• M<strong>an</strong>datory employee payment of unreasonable<br />

costs <strong>an</strong>d fees.<br />

Finally, the court reviewed the agreement under<br />

general principles of unconscionability, finding<br />

that a lack of mutuality renders m<strong>an</strong>datory arbitration<br />

agreements signed as a condition of<br />

employment unenforceable.<br />

Limitation of Remedies<br />

The court held that m<strong>an</strong>datory arbitration<br />

agreements may not limit statutorily imposed<br />

remedies such as punitive damages or attorneys’<br />

fees. Because the agreement required the employee<br />

to arbitrate statutory claims, <strong>an</strong>d then limited<br />

the damages the employee could seek under<br />

those claims, it went beyond merely choosing <strong>an</strong><br />

arbitral forum <strong>an</strong>d was unenforceable.<br />

<strong>Drafting</strong> Tip<br />

The solution to this drafting mistake is simple—don’t<br />

include <strong>an</strong>y provisions in your arbitration<br />

agreement which limit the employee’s<br />

remedies to less th<strong>an</strong> applicable law, statutory<br />

or otherwise, allows.<br />

Adequate Discovery<br />

The court recognized that one of the purposes<br />

of arbitration is to streamline the dispute resolution<br />

process, <strong>an</strong>d acknowledged that limiting<br />

discovery, to some extent, was allowable.<br />

However, m<strong>an</strong>datory arbitration agreements<br />

must not limit discovery so much that the employee<br />

c<strong>an</strong>not obtain “discovery sufficient to<br />

adequately arbitrate” the claim, because such<br />

limitation may lead to a de facto frustration of<br />

the employee’s statutory rights.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!