Today's guest blawger is Michael Sachs, who practices employment law with our firm.
Today's Wall Street Journal
discusses the increasing use of arbitration provisions in employment
agreements. The WSJ estimates as many as 20% of all businesses
require employees to agree to submit employment disputes to binding
arbitration and agree in advance to waive jury trial rights as a
condition of employment.
The article also discusses a
Missouri case where the court applied an arbitration provision even
where the employee failed to sign the agreement. The court reasoned
that by continuing to work, the employee had agreed to be governed by
the arbitration provision.
Interestingly, a recent California Court of Appeals indicates the law here is exactly the opposite. In Mitri v. Arnel Management Co. (2007) ___ C.A. 4th ___ ,
the employer brought a motion to compel arbitration based on an
arbitration provision contained in its employee handbook. The handbook
stated that any dispute would be settled by arbitration and that as a
condition of employment the employees were required to sign an
arbitration provision. The employer argued that such language, in
conjunction with an acknowledgment of receipt and review of the
handbook, created an arbitration provision. The employees argued that
there was no signed arbitration provision because this passage only
alerted them that an arbitration agreement would be forthcoming and
they would be required to sign that agreement, but that no such
agreement was ever provided to or signed by them. The California Court
of Appeals held that the employees never agreed to arbitrate their
claims and thus, the motion to compel arbitration was denied.
More discussion of the WSJ artice and a number of perspectives on arbitration appear here at Legal Blog Watch.
--Michael Sachs
Comments