Employee fired after cancer leave challenges agreement she couldn't read
California's Supreme Court reversed a ruling favoring an employer's nearly illegible arbitration agreement, holding that oppressive hiring processes trigger closer scrutiny of contract terms.
The February 2 decision in Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. should prompt HR departments across the state to examine their employment application packets and how they present arbitration agreements to new hires.
The case began when Evangelina Yanez Fuentes applied for a job at Empire Nissan. She was handed a stack of paperwork and told she had five minutes to complete it before heading to drug testing. The hiring manager mentioned the forms covered her job application, reference checks, and drug testing requirements. What nobody mentioned was the arbitration agreement buried inside.
The document's text was so blurry and broken up that it was nearly unreadable, described as “visually impenetrable” to the point that it “challenges the limits of legibility.” The arbitration clause ran about 900 words in a single paragraph, with one sentence stretching 214 words. It cited six different statutes and referenced various government agencies without explanation. Fuentes signed it and received no copy.
Two and a half years later, Fuentes went on medical leave for cancer treatment. After a year, she requested a brief extension before returning to work. Empire Nissan terminated her employment instead.
When Fuentes sued for...
Topline The latest release of the Epstein files give new insights about Epstein’s relationship with Bill Gates—which has dogged the billionaire for years, and we know now wreaked havoc on his marri...