- Written by Kevin Cleveland
Updating our previous e-blast regarding the legal challenge to AB 1513, on July 18, 2016, in Nisei Farmers League v. CA Labor and Workforce Development Agency et. al, the Court heard oral argument regarding Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 1513 (CA Labor Code section 226.2). On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the request. As a result, the temporary restraining order previously issued by the Court expired on July 18, 2016. Pursuant to the Court’s order, companies have until July 28, 2016 to sign up with the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to indicate their intent to make AB 1513 payments if they have not yet done so.
No Signature? No Problem! California Court Rules That Separate Signature Not Necessary To Enforce Arbitration Agreement
- Written by Greg Blueford
In a recent win for California employers, a California Appellate Court provided some leeway for employers who do not have separately signed arbitration agreements for their employees. The court in Harris v. TAP Worldwide ruled that employers can enforce arbitration agreements under certain conditions even where an employee has not signed the specific agreement itself. Plaintiff Dwayne Harris filed a complaint against his employer, TAP Worldwide, asserting wrongful termination and wage and hour claims. TAP Worldwide attempted to compel the plaintiff to arbitration by relying on the arbitration agreement attached as an appendix to the company’s employee handbook, for which the plaintiff signed an acknowledgment of receipt. However, the plaintiff denied the existence of an arbitration agreement because he had not signed the actual attached agreement. The trial court denied TAP Worldwide’s request to compel arbitration.
On appeal, TAP Worldwide argued that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and that the arbitration policies were contained in three documents, including the employee handbook with the arbitration agreement attached in the appendix. Further, TAP Worldwide argued that because the arbitration agreement specifically stated that continued employment with the company will be deemed voluntary consent to the terms of the arbitration agreement, the plaintiff impliedly agreed to the arbitration provision.