arbitration agreement condition of employment

The Ninth Circuit majority sidestepped the analysis and fabricated a distinction found nowhere in the FAA or in controlling Supreme Court authority. As the Supreme Court has held, the FAA will preempt a state law regulating arbitration agreements if (1) the state law creates a defense to enforcement of the arbitration agreement that is not generally applicable to any other, non-arbitration contract or (2) the state law creates an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the FAA. The district court enjoined the entire law on the ground that it was preempted by the FAA. The opinion was authored by a visiting Tenth Circuit judge, and the scathing dissent reflects both that the majority is wrong and that the analytical framework it creates is simply untenable. 15, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in the case, but the 2:1 majority opinion is, to put it charitably, a mess. We previously wrote about the district court’s lengthy and solid opinion and its grant of the injunction here. These provisions were in obvious violation of the FAA, and a California district court swiftly enjoined them for that reason. Just two years ago, California enacted AB 51 to discourage the use of mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment setting, establishing both civil and even criminal penalties for doing so. While a string of Supreme Court cases over the past decade gave employers some respite, the Ninth Circuit has now issued a split decision in which it has devised yet another means of trying to evade the FAA’s mandate. Persoff on SeptemPosted in Antitrust, Arbitration, California, Supreme Court, Uncategorizedįor many years, state and federal courts in California have opposed arbitration and have manufactured frameworks under which they become unenforceable despite the clear directives of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and countless Supreme Court cases.

Arbitration agreement condition of employment