©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2025 Cal-Peculiarities | 143 137 Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Sup. Court, 48 Cal. 4th 665, 669-70 (2010) (trial court properly vacated arbitrator’s award that “clearly erred in ruling that the employee’s claim was time-barred,” because award would have deprived the employee of “a hearing on the merits of an unwaivable statutory employment claim”). 138 Brown v. TGS Mgmt. Co., 57 Cal. App. 5th 303 (2020). 139 See Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1286.2 (ground for vacating arbitration award), 1286.6 (grounds for correcting arbitration award). 140 Crowell v. Downey Cmty. Hosp. Found., 95 Cal. App. 4th 730 (2002) (parties cannot agree to expand jurisdiction of court to provide judicial review of arbitration awards beyond that provided by statute). 141 Cable Connections v. DirecTV, 44 Cal. 4th 1334, 89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 229 (2008). The Supreme Court’s reasoning suggests that the parties could also contract to vacate an award that lacks substantial evidence to support it. 142 Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 128 S. Ct. 1396, 1404-05 (2008). 143 Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1286.2(a)(4), 1286.6(b). 144 Cable Connections v. DirecTV, 44 Cal. 4th at 1340, 89 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 234. 145 Cummings v. Future Nissan, 128 Cal. App. 4th 321 (2005). 146 Little v. Auto Steigler, Inc., 29 Cal. 4th 1064, 1072 (2003). 147 Alvarez v. Altamed Health Servs. Corp., 60 Cal. App. 5th 572 (2021) (also citing lack of clarity as to the procedure to follow in the second arbitration, which itself increases costs of litigating issues). 148 Lab. Code § 925. Section 925, effective 2017, not only invalidates mandatory forum-selection and choice-of-law provisions but creates, in subdivision (c), a right of action for employees subjected to such provisions: (a) An employer shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would do either of the following: (1) Require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California. (2) Deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California. (b) Any provision of a contract that violates subdivision (a) is voidable by the employee, and if a provision is rendered void at the request of the employee, the matter shall be adjudicated in California and California law shall govern the dispute. (c) In addition to injunctive relief and any other remedies available, a court may award an employee who is enforcing his or her rights under this section reasonable attorney fees. (d) For purposes of this section, adjudication includes litigation and arbitration. (e) This section shall not apply to a contract with an employee who is in fact individually represented by legal counsel in negotiating the terms of an agreement to designate either the venue or forum in which a controversy arising from the employment contract may be adjudicated or the choice of law to be applied. 149 Midwest Motor Supply Co. v. Superior Ct. (Finch), 56 Cal. App. 5th 702 (2020). 150 Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 238 Cal. App. 4th 227, 246-47 (2015). 151 Id. at 247-56. 152 Id. at 257. 153 Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, LP, 237 Cal. App. 4th 141 (2015). 154 Id. at 146. 155 Id. 156 Id. at 144-45. 157 Id. at 144. 158 Id. at 144-45. 159 Id. at 160. 160 Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal. 4th 1083, 1094 (1992), overruled in part by Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal. 4th 66 (1998). The California Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Legislature, not the judiciary, makes public policy in the employment arena: ‘public policy’ as a concept is notoriously resistant to precise definition, and … courts should venture into this area, if at all, with great care and due deference to the judgment of the legislative branch, ‘lest they mistake their own predilections for public policy which deserves recognition at law.’ … [C]ourts ‘should proceed cautiously’ if called upon to declare public policy absent some prior legislative expression on the subject.” Id. at 1095 (internal citations omitted). 161 Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, 35 Cal. App. 4th 620, 636, 41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 329, 338 (1995), as modified on denial of reh'g (June 29, 1995). 162 See, e.g., Stevenson v. Superior Ct. (Huntington Mem’l Hosp.), 16 Cal. 4th 880, 889-90 (1997) (public policy must have support in constitutional or statutory provision, inure to public benefit rather than merely individual interest, be articulated at the time of employee’s dismissal, and be fundamental and substantial); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal. 3d 654, 670 n.12 (1988) (no public policy implicated where plaintiff told management that co-worker was suspected of embezzlement at his prior place of employment, as the parties, consistent with public policy, could have expressly agreed that plaintiff was not to reveal co-worker’s background). 163 Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal. 4th 66, 79 (1988); Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 1238, 1256 n.9 (1994).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4