DIVIDED CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT THROWS OPEN THE DOOR TO CHALLENGES TO CLASS ACTION WAIVERS IN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS

摘要

In a landmark case that will transform the employment arbitration landscape in California, a sharply divided California Supreme Court made enforcing arbitration agreements that limit employee rights contained in employment contracts significantly more difficult. Gentry v. Superior Court, 165 P.3d 556 (Cal. August 30, 2007).rnFacts. Robert Gentry worked for Circuit City as a salaried customer service manager. When he was hired in 1995, he was given a packet of materials which included a copy of the company's "Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures," pursuant to which employees had a range of options for resolving employment disputes. This included arbitration and the arbitration provisions included a class arbitration waiver, which provided "The Arbitrator shall not consolidate claims of different Associates into one proceeding, nor shall the Arbitrator have the power to hear arbitration as a class action . . . ." It also included limitations on damages and the recovery of attorneys fees, and imposed a short statute of limitations, all of which were less favorable to employees than the applicable statutes. Employees had thirty days to opt out of the arbitration provisions by mailing in a form and Gentry did not do so.