NO FEE UNLESS YOU WIN

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia Provides One More Reason Employees Should Speak to an Employment Law Attorney

A recent Supreme Court decision, DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, provides one more reason employees should consult with an employment law attorney. Imburgia concerned whether the employee and employer had agreed to arbitrate disputes. At issue was whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempted California law.

This should have been an easy case. The agreement at issue contained a clause that provided the arbitration agreement was unenforceable, if the “law of your state” made arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers unenforceable. The law of California at the time the agreement was entered into made arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers unenforceable. Therefore, argued the employee, the arbitration agreement was unenforceable.

The employee’s argument is valid, the premises sound. But the Supreme Court rejected the employee’s argument. The majority reasoned that, although at the time the agreement was made California law said that arbitration agreements containing class action waivers were unenforceable, nonetheless, after the Imburgia plaintiffs began this lawsuit, and before the Imburgia decision, came Concepcion. Concepcion held that federal law pre-empted state law, which in turn meant California law governing class-action waivers was pre-empted. In other words, the arbitration agreement was unenforceable at formation, but became enforceable four years later on account of the decision in Concepcion, a decision neither party could have predicted at the time of entering into the agreement.

For employees, this case means arbitration agreements create moving targets because, as here, the law could change during the course of your employment. The Supreme Court has therefore made one more reason for employees to consult an attorney because your legal rights can change as the laws related to your workplace develop.

[footer block_id=’778′]

Read more

San Francisco unpaid wage lawyer

Starbucks must pay workers for off-the-clock tasks, says Supreme Court

A landmark court ruling in a wage theft case against Starbucks could signal changes for employers throughout California. Starbucks can no longer avoid paying employees for time spent on performing tasks outside...

READ ARTICLE
San Francisco unpaid wage attorney

Cheesecake Factory owes janitors $4.6 million in wage theft case

Large companies that use contracting and subcontracting sometimes do so in an attempt to avoid responsibility for ensuring their workers are paid proper wages. According to California Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su,...

READ ARTICLE
san francisco unpaid wage lawyer

La Taqueria fined $600,000 for wage violations as workers win key workplace changes

San Francisco eatery La Taqueria has enjoyed immense popularity, even appearing on The San Francisco Chronicle’s annual Top 100 restaurants list. However, the 45-year-old restaurant has received negative publicity lately due to...

READ ARTICLE
sexual harassment lawyer

State audit criticizes University of California’s handling of sexual misconduct claims

The University of California (UC) needs to improve its handling of sexual harassment complaints, according to a recent state audit. The report revealed persistent issues such as delayed investigations and inconsistencies in...

READ ARTICLE
SEEN ON
bloomberg
sfgate
kpix
cnnmoney
marin-ij
dailypost
news10