Given their druthers, courts would just as soon rule that employment arbitration agreements are valid—and send them back for an arbitrator to settle. But employers must help by making those agreements easily understood, fair and not entirely one-sided.
If employers push too hard or weigh down agreements in layers of legal jargon, courts may be tempted to declare them invalid.
Recent case: Raenee Alexander worked for Professional Exchange Service as a manager. One day, she got sick at work and was sent home. When she returned, her boss said she needed a doctor’s clearance. She brought in a doctor’s note, but the supervisor told her it wasn’t clear and that she had to sign a release authorizing him to speak with her doctor about her condition.
She quit and sued, alleging a long list of discriminatory practices.
The company told the court that she had signed an arbitration agreement and demanded the case be transferred to arbitration. Alexander argued the agreement was unconscionable, saying it was buried at the end of.
But Professional Exchange Service gave the court a photocopy showing that she had initialed receipt of the document. The agreement was separate from the rest of the handbook and featuring bold capital letters declaring it to be an arbitration agreement. The details were spelled out in plain English and were neither confusing nor entirely one-sided. In fact, Alexander retained many of the rights she would have had in court, including the right to discovery and other procedural and legal safeguards.
That was enough for the court to send the case to arbitration. (Alexander v. Professional Exchange Service, No. F059647, California Court of Appeal, 5th Appellate District, 2011)
Final note: Always have your lawyer review arbitration agreements.
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- Don't blacklist worker who quits after complaining
- Workers hired through temp service? Normal anti-discrimination rules still apply
- Asthmatic fired after creating his own accommodation
- Back up consistent discipline system with documentation, review of high-stakes cases