Court Opinion

ID: 9747670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:26:48.663028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:25.517523
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I concur in the result. I do so because the record does not suggest to what extent the employment agreement and the cost provision of the arbitration clause or of the applicable arbitration rules were negotiable. The Supreme Court in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 110-111 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669] stated, “we conclude that when an employer imposes mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment, the arbitration agreement or arbitration process cannot generally require the employee to bear any type of expense that the employee would not be required to bear if he or she were free to bring the action in court.” Thus, although arbitration clauses imposed in employment contracts “generally” are subject to certain cost requirements—at least in some types of actions—there may be employment agreements to which Armendariz’s requirements for arbitration do not apply. The Supreme Court’s rejection of “a case-by-case approach to arbitration costs” (Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1064, 1084 [130 Cal.Rptr.2d 892, 63 P.3d 979]) concerned evaluations of cost-sharing provisions, not whether the employment arrangement was subject to the minimum procedural requirements set forth in Armendariz.
A petition for a rehearing was denied May 30, 2003, and respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 13, 2003.