On June 23, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a significant win for employers in Cocom v. ABM Aviation, reversing a district court’s refusal to compel arbitration. The Court found the arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable, emphasizing that its core purpose of arbitrating employment-related claims was both lawful and enforceable. This decision provides employers with practical guidance for drafting arbitration agreements that can withstand legal challenges. Importantly, Cocom demonstrates that by limiting arbitration to employment disputes, employers can avoid the pitfalls of overbroad scope, indefinite duration, and lack of mutuality that doomed the agreement in Cook v. University of Southern California (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 312.
The critical distinction between Cocom and Cook lies in the scope of the arbitration agreements. In Cook, the agreement swept in "all claims, whether or not arising out of Employee's University employment," and included a laundry list of claims—such as torts and other matters—unrelated to the employment relationship. This overly broad approach proved fatal, serving as a cautionary tale for employers seeking to enforce arbitration agreements.
By contrast, the Cocom agreement, which defined “Covered Claims” as “any claim…including but not limited to claims arising and/or relating” to the employee’s employment, was interpreted by the Court as...
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump resurrected long-debunked claims about fraud and foreign interference in the 2020 election, alleging in an address Thursday that China stole millions of voter...