The district court had found the agreement so “tainted with illegality” that it declined to sever any of the offending provisions.

A federal district court erred in concluding that employer ABM Aviation, Inc., could not enforce an arbitration agreement with an employee who brought a putative wage and hour class action against it, the Ninth Circuit held. Distinguishing Cook v. University of Southern California, 321 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024), which found an arbitration agreement’s scope, duration, and lack of mutuality to be substantively unconscionable, the appeals court observed that the agreement here was limited to employment-related disputes, and because its scope inherently limited its duration, the latter was not indefinite. Finally, Cook’s lack-of-mutuality analysis was also distinguishable, largely because of the present agreement’s narrower scope (Cocom v. ABM Aviation, Inc., No. 25-3246 (9th Cir. June 23, 2026)).

ABM. ABM Aviation, Inc., offers commercial janitorial services to airports. The named plaintiff worked for ABM as an airport janitor between August 2020 and June 2024. When he was hired, he signed a three-page Mutual Arbitration Agreement (MAA).

Covered claims. The MAA establishes arbitration as “the exclusive remedy for any ‘Covered Claim.’” Covered claims, in turn, are defined as “any claim that the Company has against me or that I have against the Company, its past, present, and future parent(s), subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or their...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMi_wFBVV95cUxQQWRmRWJaTFdlb2hscWhCeUZa...