Search form

California Supreme Court on Arbitration Agreement Silent on Class Action Waivers

By Sherry L. Swieca, Dylan B. Carp and Mitchell F. Boomer
  • August 1, 2016

Does the court or the arbitrator decide whether the parties to an arbitration agreement intended class arbitration where the agreement does not contain an express class action waiver? The California Supreme Court responded that there is no “one-size-fits-all” answer and the issue is a matter of contract determined by state law contract interpretation principles. Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc., S220812 (July 28, 2016).

However, the Court’s rationale in holding the arbitration agreement in this case left to the arbitrator the decision of whether the parties intended class arbitration makes it difficult to imagine a scenario where a court would be permitted to decide that issue absent express contractual language. Under Sandquist, where an arbitration agreement is “silent” on the issue of class arbitration, the arbitrator, not the court likely will decide whether the parties intended class arbitration.

Background

Timothy Sandquist worked as a salesperson at Lebo Automotive. He signed three arbitration agreements during his employment with substantively similar language, and none of them included an express class action waiver.

The agreements contained broad language stating that, except for claims under the National Labor Relations Act and for state disability, unemployment, and workers’ compensation benefits, “any claim, dispute, and/or controversy … arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever” with the employment relationship or “other association with the Company” would be arbitrated “exclusively.”

Sandquist brought a putative class action against the employer, alleging racial discrimination against non-Caucasian employees. The employer asked the trial court to compel arbitration. The court agreed and ordered individual arbitration. It also struck the class claims, relying on Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds, Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010), and Kinecta Alternative Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Superior Court, 205 Cal.App.4th 506 (2012). These decisions held that where an arbitration agreement is “silent” about class claims, it could not be presumed that the parties consented to class arbitration because the fundamental differences between bilateral and class arbitration mean class arbitration (with its formal procedures and higher stakes) changes the nature of arbitration to such a degree that it “sacrifices the principal advantage of arbitration.” AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 348 (2011).

California Supreme Court Decision

A four-justice majority of the California Supreme Court disagreed that it was the trial court’s job to decide whether the parties agreed to class arbitration. Rather, it held that class arbitration is merely a procedural issue for the arbitrator to decide, not a “gateway” issue for the courts (relying on Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003), in which the U.S. Supreme Court could not resolve this issue conclusively as there was no majority opinion).

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the parties to an arbitration agreement expect that a court, and not an arbitrator, will resolve certain important “gateway” disputes, such as whether an arbitration agreement is valid and whether it covers a particular claim. Further, the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.) imposes a presumption that a court will decide gateway issues. On the other hand, the FAA presumes arbitrators will decide issues concerning the arbitration’s procedural mechanisms. See Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83 (2002).

The California Supreme Court also held that:

  1. public policy requires all doubts regarding arbitrability be resolved in favor of arbitration,
  2. ambiguities in written agreements are to be construed against the drafter (here, the employer), and
  3. the FAA does not compel a different result.

On the last point, the Court emphasized that the question of the availability of class arbitration does not concern a threshold matter, such as validity of the arbitration agreement itself and its applicability to the underlying claims. Rather, this entails only “what kind of arbitration proceeding the parties agreed to” (quoting Green Tree, 539 U.S. at 452).

Dissent

The dissent noted the Court’s decision eroded recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent rejecting “the idea that the availability of class arbitration is purely a matter of procedure,” as it fundamentally changes the nature of the arbitration and with whom the parties are arbitrating, given that absent class members are involved. The dissent also noted that the majority opinion deviates from every federal court of appeals to consider the issue.

Next Steps

Employers should review and consider updating their arbitration agreements to specify who decides whether class arbitration is permissible, particularly if they do not contain an express class action waiver.

Please contact Jackson Lewis with any questions about Sandquist or arbitration in California.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

October 30, 2017

Chicago Adopts ‘Hands Off Pants On’ Law to Protect Hotel Workers from Sexual Harassment, Assault

October 30, 2017

To provide hospitality workers greater protections against sexual harassment and assault, the Chicago City Council passed the “Hands Off Pants On” Ordinance on October 11, 2017. The Ordinance requires all hotels in the City to adopt a panic button system and an anti-sexual harassment policy. The Ordinance was passed after months of... Read More

October 24, 2017

California Adds ‘Transgender,’ ‘Gender Nonconforming Individuals’ to Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors

October 24, 2017

Employers subject to California’s mandatory sexual harassment training requirement for supervisors will need to ensure their programs include prevention of harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation following an amendment (SB 396) to California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). On October 15... Read More

October 5, 2017

Department of Justice Releases Memorandum Restricting Transgender Worker Protection under Title VII

October 5, 2017

On October 4, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the Department of Justice’s position that gender identity is protected as part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against sex discrimination — taking a position that is contrary to current guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In a... Read More

Related Practices