California Employee Rights Against Unfair Arbitration Agreements

California law looks at both the process and the terms of an arbitration agreement. Courts examine whether the employer presented the form during a take-it-or-leave-it moment and whether the clauses treat both sides equally. You gain protection when the agreement shows procedural pressure or substantive terms that favor the company. The recent opinion confirms that a court may refuse to enforce an agreement when the provisions strip you of access to evidence, reserve courtroom rights for the employer, or block fair remedies. You can rely on these principles when you face an arbitration packet at hire or later in your employment.

California Court Of Appeal Clarifies Mid Employment Rollouts

Many employers ask workers to sign new forms months after onboarding. The appellate court addressed a rollout like that and held that the presentation and content mattered. You improve your position when you show how the company delivered the documents, what deadlines it set, and whether you received a meaningful opt-out. The decision recognized that a formal opt-out line does not cure pressure when the workplace reality tells a different story. You can also point to companion documents, such as confidentiality policies, that try to muzzle witnesses or hide outcomes. The court treated related documents as a package and measured their combined effect. You can use that approach to show a judge how the puzzle pieces fit together.

Challenging One-Sided Workplace Arbitration Agreements In California

California applies unconscionability analysis to arbitration contracts. You prove procedural concerns through evidence of surprise, unequal bargaining power, and rushed signatures. You prove substantive concerns by showing terms that favor the company, such as carve-outs for employer claims, limits on discovery, secrecy rules that block witness contact, or fee arrangements that chill employee claims. The appellate court affirmed a trial judge who found the agreement permeated by unfairness and refused to sever a few sentences. You benefit from that guidance because it confirms courts need not rewrite a lopsided deal. You can ask a judge to deny enforcement and keep your wage, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or whistleblower claims in court.

California Employment Lawyer Guidance For Arbitration Battles

Legal advice early in the dispute gives you real leverage. A lawyer who represents only employees will audit the paperwork, compare versions, and track every change across time. You should share how and when human resources delivered the forms, who presented them, and what pressure you felt. Counsel can cross-reference those facts with company policies to show a judge how the system worked in practice. You also gain strategic options when your lawyer identifies the provisions that block access to evidence or reserve special court rights for the employer. This approach helps you decide whether to move to compel discovery inside arbitration, to oppose arbitration outright, or to seek a court ruling that keeps your case in the public forum.

Evidence You Gather Now To Strengthen Your Case

You build strength by collecting documents and details that demonstrate both the process and the unfair terms. A short list keeps you focused on what matters most and helps your lawyer act fast.

• Save every agreement, handbook, update email, and acknowledgment sheet;
• Keep timestamps, screenshots, and envelopes that show delivery methods and deadlines;
• Preserve messages where supervisors refer to the forms or apply pressure to sign; and
• Identify witnesses who saw the rollout or who faced similar documents.

These items provide the court with a clear record and support the argument that the agreement does not constitute a fair bargain. You finish this step by organizing the files and sending copies to your lawyer so nothing goes missing later.

California Court Standards For Confidentiality And Discovery Limits

Employers often pair arbitration with sweeping confidentiality or nondisclosure clauses. Courts will not accept rules that bar you from speaking with coworkers or witnesses about facts. Judges also look closely at discovery limits. You should highlight language that blocks you from obtaining documents that the company would control in a court case. The appellate opinion approved a trial judge who viewed the agreement and the companion confidentiality policy together. That combined reading showed a structural advantage for the company and supported the denial of arbitration. You can point to the same theme when paperwork tries to silence you while preserving courtroom options for the employer.

California Employee Rights Strategy For Keeping Your Case in Court

You protect your rights by following a clear plan. Start by requesting a full copy of every agreement and policy that relates to arbitration or confidentiality. Next, list the differences between versions across time. Then map the terms that favor the company, such as carve-outs, fee shifting, venue selection, gag orders, or discovery restrictions. Finally, meet with a California employment lawyer who represents workers only and decide whether to oppose arbitration, to seek limited discovery on formation issues, or to ask the court to strike the agreement entirely. This plan gives you control and aligns your next moves with the standards the Court of Appeal just reinforced.

Talk To A California Employment Lawyer Who Represents Employees Only

You deserve a fair forum and a level field. The Nourmand Law Firm, APC, represents employees only. You get a team that understands how to challenge one-sided arbitration agreements, overbroad confidentiality clauses, and mid-employment rollouts that lack mutuality. Call 800-700-WAGE (9243) for a free consultation. You will get a straight review of your documents and a clear plan to protect your rights.

In this case, a worker brought class and representative wage and hour claims, including allegations under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The trial court ordered the claims into arbitration. However, the employer failed to pay more than $50,000 in required fees within the 30-day window set by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. That statute exists to protect workers from being trapped in arbitration by employers who delay or obstruct the process. California employment lawyers routinely rely on this provision to hold employers accountable when they attempt to game the system.

Arbitration Deadlines Matter for California Workers

Section 1281.98 exists to prevent employers from benefiting by delay. When an employer initiates arbitration and then fails to pay its share of costs, the employee has a clear legal right to withdraw and return to court. That right is critical in leveling the playing field for workers pushed into private forums where delays can harm both the process and the outcome.

In this situation, the employee requested that the trial court vacate the order compelling arbitration and allow the claims to proceed in civil court. The court initially agreed. Later, after reviewing new arguments from the employer, the court reversed itself, holding that California’s rule conflicted with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Court of Appeal Reaffirms Worker Rights Under State Law

The California Court of Appeal corrected the trial court’s mistake. It held that section 1281.98 does not conflict with the FAA. Instead, it furthers the federal goal of resolving disputes efficiently. The appellate court emphasized that the rule promotes fairness and prompt resolution, not delay.

The court also made clear that it is the judge, not the arbitrator, who decides whether the employer defaulted by failing to pay. This decision strengthens the legal framework that protects California workers when arbitration agreements are used to silence wage and hour claims.

You Can Fight Back When Arbitration Fails You

When your employer demands arbitration after a workplace violation, they are legally obligated to follow through both in the process and payment. If they fail to cover the required arbitration fees or cause unjustified delays, California law gives you the ability to take action. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, you may have the right to withdraw from arbitration and bring your case back to court. This matters because court proceedings offer more precise deadlines, judicial oversight, and a more balanced environment.

If you find yourself in this situation, begin by documenting every communication and notice related to arbitration. Track when your employer was invoiced, what amount was due, and whether it was paid within the 30-day deadline. If that deadline passes without payment, you can file a motion to vacate the order that sent your case to arbitration. Once that motion is granted, you can proceed in court.

Taking swift action is essential. Delays may limit your ability to recover wages, penalties, or damages under the Labor Code. Reaching out to a California employment attorney early allows you to understand your rights and take the necessary steps before time runs out. You may also be eligible to request monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.99. When employers try to delay or avoid accountability, you do not have to accept it. The law protects workers from unfair arbitration tactics, and with legal support, you can push forward on your terms.

Call Today to Discuss Your Options

Delays and unpaid fees should never keep you from justice. If you have been forced into arbitration or are pursuing a PAGA or wage and hour claim, speak with a California employment lawyer who focuses exclusively on workers’ rights. To learn more, call The Nourmand Law Firm at 800-700-WAGE (9243) and schedule a consultation. You deserve to be heard, and we are here to help.

Employer’s Arbitration Agreement Deemed Unfair

A former employee sued her company for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The employer attempted to move the case to arbitration, citing an agreement the worker signed during onboarding. However, the trial court found serious issues with the agreement and refused to enforce it.

The agreement contained multiple unfair provisions, including unreasonably short deadlines for filing claims, improper shifting of attorney fees, and a lack of mutual obligations. These terms created an uneven playing field, effectively limiting the employee’s ability to seek justice. The court determined that the agreement was a contract of adhesion—one that employees were required to accept without meaningful negotiation.

California Courts Strike Down Employer-Favored Arbitration Agreement

After the trial court rejected arbitration, the employer appealed. The California Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s ruling, agreeing that the contract contained several unfair provisions. The California Supreme Court later reviewed the case, concurring that at least three provisions were unconscionable. However, rather than outright voiding the agreement, the high court sent the case back to the Court of Appeal to determine whether the unfair terms could be removed while keeping the rest of the contract intact.

On reconsideration, the Court of Appeal concluded that severing these provisions would not solve the problem. The court found that the arbitration agreement had been designed to benefit the employer overwhelmingly, making it fundamentally unfair. Since the flaws in the agreement were not limited to a few isolated provisions but reflected a broader pattern of overreach, the court upheld the trial court’s decision to reject the arbitration request entirely. This ruling reinforces that California courts take employee rights seriously and will not enforce agreements that employers use to strip workers of their legal protections.

This case sets an important precedent, reminding workers that not all arbitration agreements are legally binding. Employers cannot include provisions that unfairly favor them while limiting employee rights. If an arbitration agreement contains terms that reduce access to legal remedies, shift financial burdens unfairly, or force employees into an unjust process, courts may refuse to enforce it. Employees should be aware of their rights and seek legal guidance if they believe an arbitration agreement is being used against them.

How California Employees Can Fight Back Against Unfair Arbitration Agreements

Employers often include arbitration clauses in onboarding paperwork, making signing seem like another formality. Many workers do not realize that these agreements can limit their ability to seek justice in court. This case serves as a warning—arbitration is not always the only option, and California courts are willing to strike down agreements that unfairly restrict employee rights.

State law protects workers from contracts that impose excessive restrictions, create financial burdens, or favor the employer. If an arbitration clause limits your ability to file claims, shifts legal costs unfairly, or removes key protections, it may not be enforceable. Employees should review these agreements carefully and seek legal advice before signing. A poorly structured arbitration agreement can leave workers without the recourse they deserve, but legal options may still be available to challenge it.

Speak with an Employment Lawyer About Your Options

Employers cannot use arbitration agreements to strip workers of their legal rights. If you are facing workplace discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination and your employer is forcing arbitration, you may have grounds to challenge it. Understanding your rights and taking action early can make a difference in the outcome of your case.

Call the Nourmand Law Firm, APC, today for a free consultation and take the first step toward asserting your rights.

Facts of the Case

An apprentice electrician brought two separate lawsuits against his employer for unfair practices. Of note, the employee signed an arbitration agreement upon hiring that subjected the employee to binding arbitration for any disputes with the employer. The arbitration agreement included, among other provisions, measures that limited discovery, waived the right to pursue class action lawsuits, and required the complaining employee to pay filing fees and other expenses.

In a previous case, the employee filed a lawsuit against his employer for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA). In the FEHA case, the trial court granted the employer’s motion to compel arbitration after severing “substantively unconscionable” terms from the arbitration agreement.

In the present lawsuit, the employee alleged Labor Code violations, including failure to pay minimum, vacation, and overtime wages, unlawful wage deductions, failure to reimburse expenses, and failure to provide meal breaks, among other complaints. This time, the trial court denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration, noting that unconscionability permeated the agreement both procedurally and substantively and allowed the case to proceed in court. The employer appealed, saying the outcome of the previous case required the enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The employer also argued the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable, or, alternatively, the court should have severed unconscionable terms from the agreement and enforced the remainder of the agreement.

The Court’s Decision

The court ultimately condemned the employer’s arbitration agreement, noting that it was “permeated with unconscionability.” The court explained that the agreement was a form agreement that was a condition of employment, so the employee did not have a meaningful choice in accepting it. In addition, the agreement had small print and was accessed on the employee’s cell phone, making it even smaller. Finally, the arbitration agreement itself was an issue because it wrongfully required the employee to pay filing fees and costs and wrongfully limited discovery.

Because the agreement was so one-sided, the court could not just sever certain problematic provisions but would have to rewrite the entire agreement—an agreement with terms the parties never originally agreed to. The court upheld the trial court’s determination that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable and allowed the employee’s claim to proceed. The court also rejected the employer’s attempt to uphold the arbitration agreement due to the previous court ruling in the other lawsuit.

Do You Need a California Employment Law Attorney?

Do you have claims against your employer but worry you signed away your right to sue? Your claims may still be valid. Contact a California employment lawyer to discuss your situation. The attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm will review every possible avenue for recovery. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call us today at 310-553-3600.

While California’s arbitration ban (AB 51) prohibits certain California employers from requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, certain employers, like those covered by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), are exempt from this prohibition. However, recent decisions indicate that the FAA does not entirely preempt AB51. As such, many employers continue to enforce and attempt to uphold arbitration agreements, despite the employer’s failure to meet the terms of the agreement.

Gallo v. Wood Ranch USA, Inc.

A California court appellate court recently issued an opinion in a case where an employer moved to compel arbitration after a former employer sued the company for compensatory and punitive damages. According to the record, Plaintiff was required to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of her employment. The relevant agreement stated, in short, that any controversy, dispute, or claim between the employee and employer must be settled by binding arbitration. The agreement also specified that the arbitrator must determine issues based on California or federal law but should look to the California Arbitration Act to conduct the arbitration.

After the parties agreed to an arbitrator, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) sent a notice to the employee and employer informing them of the fee to proceed with arbitration. Plaintiff submitted her payment, but the employer did not pay their portion until after the due date. As a result, Plaintiff moved to vacate the order compelling arbitration based on the employer’s material breach.

California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.97, 1281.98 and 1281.99 mandate that employers pay their share of arbitration fees by the due date. The provisions also specify that a failure to do so constitutes a material breach. In these cases, the employee has the option of (1) continuing in arbitration or (2) withdrawing from arbitration and resuming litigation.

Relevant to this case was whether the FAA preempts the provisions, and the court held that they are not because the procedures further rather than frustrate the FAA’s objectives. As such, the court upheld the lower court’s order vacating its order compelling arbitration.

California Employee Rights Attorneys

If you or someone you know has experienced unlawful employment practices, contact the California employment lawyer at The Nourmand Law Firm. The attorneys on our team have extensive experience successfully representing employees who have suffered adverse employment actions by their employer. In addition to California employment law matters, our firm handles employment discrimination claims, sexual harassment in the workplace, wrongful termination, retaliation, class actions, and defamation cases. If you were mistreated at work, contact our firm at 310-553-3600 to learn about your rights and remedies.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case was a carpenter who was previously employed by the defendant. The plaintiff’s employment was conditioned upon agreeing to CBAs that were negotiated by two unions that the plaintiff was a member of. The CBAs in question mandated that any grievances employees had related to wage theft would be handled through binding arbitration, instead of in the state courts. The plaintiff made a claim in state court that the defendant had violated several employment laws and was not paying the plaintiff for work that had been done. The defendant responded to the plaintiff’s state court claims by attempting to enforce the arbitration agreement that was part of the CBAs. The state court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the case, leading the plaintiff to appeal the decision to the California Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the high court agreed with the lower court’s reasoning, holding that the grievance procedures outlined in the CBAs were clear and unambiguous and that the plaintiff had no right to ignore the CBAs. The court reasoned that a CBA should be evaluated just as any other contract would be and that the plaintiff understood and agreed to the CBA, and benefited from some of the provisions contained within it. As a result of the appellate findings and ruling, the plaintiff will be forced to pursue his claims at arbitration as stated in the CBAs.

Collective bargaining agreements and the work of unions in general help employees stand up to owners and management in most cases. Some provisions of CBAs are accepted as a compromise, and will not actually benefit employees. Arbitration requirements are a perfect example of this. If a CBA is otherwise valid and understandable, the undesirable provisions cannot be ignored, as the CBA contract must be evaluated as a whole.

Is it Possible to Challenge Provisions in a Collective Bargaining Agreement?

Although the recently decided appeal demonstrated that CBAs are binding contracts between employees and employers, all of the provisions of a CBA may not always be enforceable. If you or someone you know is facing an employment law issue and a CBA is involved, you may be able to work around the CBA provisions. The experienced California employment law attorneys with the Nourmand Law Firm can help you determine the best course of action for your claim. Even if the CBA is enforceable, our representation and advice can help you make the strongest claim to get what you deserve. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today.

The plaintiff in the recently decided appeal had been an employee of the defendant, a large communications company. As a condition of her employment with the defendant, the plaintiff was required to enter into an arbitration agreement to resolve any disputes. The agreement included provisions that would make it more difficult for employees to succeed at making claims against the defendant. The plaintiff was terminated from employment with the defendant less than one year after starting the job, and she alleged that the termination was unlawful. The plaintiff made several claims in state court under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, alleging unlawful termination.

In response to the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the defendant attempted to enforce the arbitration agreement, remove the plaintiff’s claims from state court, and collect attorneys’ fees from her for filing the suit in the first place. The plaintiff responded that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and against public policy because employees were essentially forced to give up their legal rights to a fair process in order to work for the defendant. The California state court ultimately agreed with the plaintiff, finding that the defendant was violating public policy by forcing their employees to adhere to an unfair arbitration agreement. The defendant appealed the ruling to the state Court of Appeals, where the lower court’s ruling and reasoning was affirmed. Specifically, the court ruled that several provisions of the arbitration agreement were unconscionable and unenforceable, and as a result, the plaintiff’s claim shall proceed in the state court.

Where to Turn with Questions About Unlawful Termination or Arbitration Agreements

Policymakers and employers are engaged in an endless dance, with policy generally setting out to protect employees, and employers seeking a way around the protections. Employers have great incentives to prevent their employees and former employees from pursuing claims in state court, and unfortunately, they get away with it far too often. If you or a friend has been mistreated at work by an employer or is being forced into arbitration to address complaints or concerns, you don’t necessarily have to play the employer’s game. Consulting with a qualified California employment law attorney from the Nourmand Law Firm is the first step to having your claim heard in a fair manner. Our experienced employment law attorneys understand the tricks that employers use to prevent their employees from obtaining relief, and we can help you hold them accountable, whether in a courtroom or at arbitration. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today.

The main alternative to court for resolving a dispute between an employee and an employer is arbitration. Arbitration uses a supposedly neutral third party to resolve disputes in and out of the employment context. Because arbitration often yields a faster resolution than a trial would, many employers require their employees to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of their employment. Once signed, arbitration agreements essentially waive an employee’s right to sue her employer in court.

A recent case helped cement the principle that California employees cannot be compelled to arbitrate claims under a major employment law in the state, even when they have signed an agreement to arbitrate disputes arising out of the employment.

In this case, a woman sued her employer under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). PAGA empowers California employees to sue their employer for various labor violations, like failing to pay overtime in accordance with the state’s wage and hour laws.

The law is a powerful tool for employees because it enables them to obtain civil penalties—meaning money—for labor violations as if they were a state agency.

In the case at hand, an employee brought several PAGA claims against her employer in court. The employer tried to force the employee to resolve the dispute through arbitration in accordance with the agreement she had signed. This was in spite of the fact that earlier this year, a California court explained that aggrieved employees have the right to file their PAGA lawsuits in court, even if they signed an arbitration agreement before the dispute arose.

If the court had accepted the employer’s position, it would have represented a major step back for employees seeking to have their day in court under PAGA. Instead, the court reaffirmed the principle that PAGA litigants cannot be forced to arbitrate. In fact, even if a worker has expressly waived the right to file a PAGA claim in court, the courts will not enforce such a waiver because it is so contrary to public policy and the reason for PAGA’s enactment in the first place.

PAGA is an important statute for California workers. It covers a variety of labor violations and, as is clear from this case, allows those grievances to be heard in court in the vast majority of cases. Partnering with the right employment lawyer can help ensure that your PAGA claim will be heard and ultimately vindicated in the courtroom.

Consult a California Employment Law Attorney Today

If you have been the victim of unfair treatment at work, you may have a case against your employer. For over two decades, the California employment law firm of The Nourmand Law Firm, APC has dedicated itself to protecting hard-working employees like you against employers seeking to take advantage of their position. Whether you have been the victim of workplace harassment, wage theft, physical injury, or some other harm at the hands of your employer, our firm is prepared to hear your story and fight for a judgment that will make you whole. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today. You can also complete our online form to get started.

The plaintiff obtained employment at the company and later filed a claim against the company, alleging that he was not compensated for overtime work or certain business expenses and that he was not provided with accurate wage statements. He also alleged that he injured his back at work, took leave, and once he was able to return to work, he never heard back from the company. The company argued that the suit was required to be resolved through arbitration based on the language of the agreement. The plaintiff argued in part that the agreement was unconscionable and could not be enforced.

Unconscionability Under California Law

Although federal law and California law favor enforcing valid arbitration agreements, courts will not enforce an agreement that is unconscionable. Under California law, unconscionability means an “absence of meaningful choice” for one of the parties along with contract terms that unreasonably favor the other party. Thus, California law considers both the equality of bargaining power and “overly harsh or one-sided results.”

The Court’s Decision

In this case, the court noted that the agreement was not hidden in the application, but it was a precondition to employment and the plaintiff claimed that he was pressured to sign the agreement. In addition, the agreement shortened the applicable statute of limitations to one year and it limited each party to 20 interrogatories and three depositions for each side. The court explained that although the discovery limitation was seemingly neutral, it favored the employer because employers often have many of the relevant documents in their possession. Therefore, the court found the agreement was unconscionable and the case was allowed to proceed in court.

Contact a California Employee Rights Lawyer

If you are concerned about a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act or of state or local labor standards, consult the Los Angeles employee rights lawyers at The Nourmand Law Firm. At The Nourmand Law Firm, we have dedicated our practice to protecting employees and their rights for more than two decades. They provide knowledge and tenacious legal representation to individuals in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, as well as Oakland and Sacramento, among other areas. Call us today at 800-700-WAGE (9243) or contact us through our online form.

The arbitration agreement stated that the employee agreed to resolves any disputes related to her employment in arbitration. It also included a delegation clause, which stated that the arbitrator would have the exclusive authority to resolve disputes related to the “interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this agreement, including the assumption that this agreement is unenforceable.”

In court, the employee argued that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to fraud, duress, and un-conscionability. However, the California court found that it could not rule on the validity of the agreement because of the delegation clause. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held that if a delegation clause is “clear and unmistakable,” a court has to enforce it. This means that unless no agreement between the parties took place, the arbitrator must decide any questions related to the agreement’s validity. The court found that the delegation clause in the agreement clearly and unmistakably assigned the issues of validity of the agreement to the arbitrator.

The court further explained that under California law, no agreement exists if a contract is void due to fraud in the execution. Yet, there is an agreement if a contract is only voidable due to fraud in the execution. The court found that there was no fraud in the execution of the arbitration agreement under California law in this case. The employee claimed that her employers misrepresented the nature of the documents and that she was not given time to consult with her lawyer before signing. The court found that these claims did not amount to fraud in the execution. The court held that a party’s negligent reliance on another party’s representations does not absolve a party that fails to read a written agreement before signing it. It also noted that the employee signed a version of the agreement in Spanish and that she was only told she had to sign it that day, and thus she had the opportunity to read the contract before signing. Therefore, the court found that in this case, taking the allegations as true, the contract was only voidable. Thus, any issues concerning the validity of the agreement must be decided by the arbitrator.

Contact a California Workplace Rights Lawyer

If you believe your employer has taken advantage of you, talk to an experienced California employment lawyer. At The Nourmand Law Firm, we can help by advising you of your rights and representing you in a dispute with your employer. We have over 20 years of experience handling matters such as employment discrimination, sexual harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation, and wage and hour violations, and we only represent employees, so you know where our loyalties lie. Call us today at 800-700-WAGE (9243) or contact us through our online form.

The Department of Labor filed an enforcement action against an employer, alleging that the employer and his companies violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the action alleged that the employer violated minimum wage, overtime, record-keeping, and anti-retaliation requirements by mis-classifying delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The employer filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement signed by the employer and the delivery drivers. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration, and the employer appealed.

The appeals court held that a private arbitration agreement does not bar the Department of Labor from bringing an FLSA action. The FLSA allows the Department of Labor to seek monetary relief on behalf of employees. The court reasoned that the Department of Labor was not a party to the arbitration agreement, so it was not bound by the agreement. Therefore, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not require the Department of Labor to arbitrate the claim because it never agreed to do so.

Fair Labor Standards Act Claims in California

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal law that sets forth minimum wage, overtime pay, record keeping, and youth employment standards for employees. Covered nonexempt workers under the FLSA must be paid a minimum wage of at least $7.25 per hour. States may have higher minimum wage laws as well. As of January 1, 2021, California’s minimum wage is $14 per hour for employers with 26 or more employees and $13 per hour for employers with 25 or fewer employees. Federal law requires that employers follow California’s regulations even if they are more stringent than federal requirements. Cities and counties may also have higher standards. Under the FLSA, workers are also entitled to overtime pay of at least one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hourly work over 40 hours in a work week. Workers who believe their employer has violated federal, state, or local labor standards should consult with a California employee rights attorney.

Contact a California Employee Rights Lawyer

If you are concerned about a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act or of state or local labor standards, you should consult the Los Angeles employee rights lawyers at The Nourmand Law Firm. Our attorneys provide knowledge and tenacious legal representation to workers who have been harmed in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Palm Springs, Beverly Hills, Van Nuys, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, and other areas of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties. Call us today at 800-700-WAGE (9243), or you can contact us through our online form.