Supporters of the law said it could withstand a preemption challenge. They argue that the bill does not prevent the parties from entering into voluntary conciliation agreements; Rather, it focuses on consent and therefore regulates conduct before an arbitration agreement is reached, and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the FAA. But, as then-Governor Brown noted in his veto message to AB 3080, the Supreme Court ruled that the FAA “is not only concerned with the enforcement of arbitration agreements, but also with their initial `validity` — that is, what it takes to conclude them.” [7] Therefore, the alleged regulation of conduct prior to the agreement, when it focuses on arbitration agreements, is contrary to the FAA and federal policy, which favours arbitration. “The assertion that a conciliation agreement must be before the acts on which the dispute is based is inappropriate. Such a proposal is contrary to the principles of the Treaty governing arbitration agreements. (Zink v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (10th Cir. 1993) 13 F.3d 330, 332.) “An arbitration agreement may be applied retroactively to transactions that took place prior to the performance of the arbitration agreement.” (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. King (M.D.Fla. 1992) 804 F.Supp.1512, 1514; Shotto v. Laub (D.Md.
1986) 632 F.Supp. 516, 522 [“Whether the claimants signed the agreements before or after the opening of their accounts, or even before or after the claim arose, does not detract from the fact that they signed written agreements to arbitrate the claims in their account”]; See also Desert Outdoor Advertising v. Superior Court, a. a. O., 196 Cal.App.4th on p. 877 [the general language of the arbitration agreement applied to a dispute that arose before the signing of the arbitration agreement]; In Re Currency Conversion Fairy Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 265 F.Supp.2d 385, 407 [the grand language – `any dispute, assertion or controversy. Arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, your account.
. “- necessary arbitration for claims that the claimant had prior to the approval of the arbitration.) Proponents of AB 51 argue that it is not anticipated by the FAA, as it only affects “binding” arbitration agreements and not “voluntary” agreements. However, this argument ignores a long series of federal cases that rely on the FAA maintaining arbitration agreements imposed on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis as long as they meet certain criteria of substantive fairness. In addition, the language of the law cited above, which purports to prohibit the “opt-out” or any other positive action by employees, makes it clear that the new law will also have an impact on “voluntary” agreements. In the second case of Diaz against sohnen Enterprises Inc. (2018) — Cal.App.5th —, Erika Diaz filed a complaint of discrimination in the workplace on December 22, 2016, twenty days after receiving, at a personal meeting, a new dispute resolution policy to which they would be related if they continued their employment after being received. The court found that Diaz tacitly accepted the agreement by continuing his employment after the meeting, even though the alleged conduct that was the subject of his appeal may have occurred before that date. The tribunal decided not to rely on federal cases from other jurisdictions, which established that arbitration agreements required the explicit written consent of an employee.
Salgado asserted that the arbitration agreement did not apply to claims arising before it was signed. The court agreed and did not address Salgado`s other arguments about the applicability of the agreement. The Court of Appeal opposed the Court of Justice and gave employers a good opinion on the applicability of arbitration agreements. . . .
Comments are closed.