As discussed in this post from 2016, California Labor Code Section 925 prohibits an employer from requiring 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:
Require the employee to adjudicate or arbitrate outside of California a claim arising in California.
Deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California.
In Zhang v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 16832570, the plaintiff was a former "full interest partner" in a law firm who lived and worked in California. He signed a partnership agreement with a broad arbitration clause that required arbitration in Chicago or New York. Under the rules applicable to the arbitration, the arbitrator was authorized to decide issues of arbitrability. After the law firm terminated the partner for cause and initiated arbitration, the erstwhile partner sought to avoid arbitration in New York based on Section 925. The question that became who would decide the arbitrability of the dispute - the New York court or the arbitrator?
The Court of Appeal found in favor of the law firm, concluding:
The parties delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The arbitrator in New York must decide if petitioner is an employee. If the arbitrator decides petitioner is an employee, the merits of the dispute must be decided in California. If the arbitrator decides petitioner is not...
Supreme Court has directed all States to probe motor vehicle insurance claims after it was found that fraudulent methods are being employed to cheat insurance firms. Make Us Your Preferred Sourc...