Opinion ID: 586393
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: California Labor Code Section 432.2

Text: 35 Saari argues that his state polygraph claim is not arbitrable because Congress, by exempting federal polygraph claims from arbitration, also intended to exempt state polygraph claims. This argument has no merit. As pointed out above, there is no exemption of federal polygraph claims. 36 Saari also relies on the non-preemption provisions of EPPA in Section 2009 which provide: this chapter shall not preempt any provision of any State or local law ... that prohibits lie detector tests or is more restrictive with respect to lie detector tests than any provision of this chapter. Saari contends that Section 2009 saves his state law claims from arbitration because the California law is only more restrictive than EPPA if its judicial enforcement remains intact. 37 Section 2009 merely protects state statutory remedies which are more protective of the employee than EPPA. It does not, however, determine whether the state law claim should be arbitrated or adjudicated in the federal district court. To the extent that California's preference for a judicial forum would interfere with the choice expressed by Congress in the FAA, it is preempted. See Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 491, 107 S.Ct. 2520, 2526, 96 L.Ed.2d 426 (1987) (state statute providing a judicial forum for wage/commission claim based on the sales of securities which is in conflict with the FAA must give way).