Search form

Pay the Piper – California Employers Pressed to Pay Arbitration Fees or Risk Harsh Consequences

By Scott P. Jang and Samia M. Kirmani
  • October 18, 2019

California employers may face harsh consequences for failing to pay arbitration fees on time under a bill (Senate Bill 707) signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2019. The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2020.

Under the new law, if an employer fails to pay fees required for the commencement or continuation of an arbitration within 30 days of the payment’s due date, the employer’s conduct is deemed a material breach of the arbitration agreement. The claimant will then have the unilateral option of:

  1. Moving the case to court and recovering attorney’s fees in connection with the effort;
  2. Compelling the employer to pay the fees and recovering attorney’s fees in connection with the effort;
  3. If the arbitration has already commenced, continuing the arbitration with the employer in default and a potential collection action against the employer at the conclusion of the arbitration; or
  4. If the arbitration has already commenced, paying the fees and having them awarded back to the plaintiff as part of the arbitration award, regardless of the merits of the claim.

In addition, the law mandates the court or arbitrator to issue appropriate sanctions against the employer. These may include:

  • Monetary sanctions;
  • Issue sanctions;
  • Evidence sanctions; or
  • Terminating sanctions.

Litigation likely will ensue on whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts the new law for creating obstacles to the execution and enforcement of arbitration agreements. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that “state-law rules that stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s objectives” are subject to federal preemption. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 343 (2011).

In the meantime, however, employers should remain vigilant in timely paying arbitration fees and ensure that they have processes in place to do so. Employers should also recognize and anticipate that the new law will be used as leverage against employers, particularly when multiple, coordinated individual actions are filed against one employer.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor developments under the law. Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

©2019 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 13, 2019

Healthcare Employers’ Title VII Obligations in Harassment, Discrimination of Employees by Patients

November 13, 2019

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires healthcare employers to protect their medical staff and employees from harassment and discrimination and respond to any such behaviors swiftly and effectively, even if the actor is a patient, rather than a coworker or supervisor. A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit... Read More

October 15, 2019

New California Law Attacks Mandatory Arbitration Again … But Is It More Bark Than Bite?

October 15, 2019

California has joined a number of states in passing legislation purporting to prohibit mandatory arbitration agreements for sexual harassment and other claims. Such laws have gained popularity in the wake of the #MeToo movement, but are subject to challenge under Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preemption principles. (See our articles... Read More

October 15, 2019

Third-Party Harassment and Discrimination: The Customer Isn’t Always Right

October 15, 2019

As fiscal year 2019 ends for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), it has announced it is pursuing several new discrimination suits, including one alleging a casino failed to protect female staffers from sexual harassment by patrons. Sexual misconduct and harassment have been in the national spotlight more than ever and... Read More

Related Practices