Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services

40 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. What Remains of Effective Vindication? Something Important, Says the Second Circuit

    Stinson Leonard Street - Arbitration NationApril 29, 2019

    The Second Circuit also joins at least the spirit, if not the particulars, of California’s jurisprudence on this issue, which looks at five factors to determine if the arbitration of statutory rights would amount to a substantive waiver of them. See, e.g., Ramos v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. App. 5th 1042, 1047 (Ct. App. 2018) (confirming the continuing validity of the California Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83 (2000)). In California, those five factors evaluate process issues to make sure, fundamentally, that arbitration gives rights holders a fair shake.

  2. Key California Employment Law Cases: November 2018

    Payne & FearsEric SohlgrenDecember 18, 2018

    When plaintiff filed suit against defendant for sex discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and violation of California’s Equal Pay Act, defendant moved to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims in accordance with an arbitration agreement that plaintiff signed shortly after joining the firm. Defendant argued that because plaintiff was a partner and not in an employment relationship with defendant, (1) the requirements for arbitration clauses in mandatory employment agreements outlined in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 745 (2000), did not apply; (2) Armendariz was no longer good law; and (3) even if Armendariz applied and was still good law, its requirements were satisfied. The trial court granted defendant’s motion but severed the provisions of the agreement relating to venue and cost-sharing.

  3. Will He or Won’t He? Employment Arbitration Ban Proposal Heads to Governor Brown

    Fisher PhillipsBenjamin EbbinkAugust 29, 2018

    California courts have addressed the issue of unfairness by insisting that employment arbitration agreements must include numerous protections to be enforceable, including neutrality of the arbitrator, adequate discovery, no limitation on damages or remedies, a written decision that permits some judicial review, and limitations on the costs of arbitration. See, e.g., Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83 (2000). If abuses remain, they should be specified and solved by targeted legislation, not a blanket prohibition.

  4. Governor Brown Signed Bill Amending A Key Term In The California Arbitration Act

    Jackson Lewis P.C.Jessica ArmijoJuly 23, 2018

    (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) As the California Supreme Court observed in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 83, 98, revocation of a contract is a misnomer because only offers to create a contract can be revoked. If an offer is revoked, there is by definition no contract or agreement.

  5. When In Doubt Pay The Fee – Court Holds Lifting of Litigation Stay for Failure to Pay Cost of Arbitration is Not Appealable

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPYvette DavisFebruary 17, 2016

    The Court reaffirmed established precedent which holds that employer mandated arbitration clauses are not enforceable unless the employer pays for all fees associated with the arbitration. Gastelum is one of many appellate decisions to follow Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, the seminal California case on mandatory employment arbitration agreements. It also follows Wherry, et al. v. Award, Inc., 192 Cal.App. 4th 1242 (2011), a Court of Appeal case holding that Armendariz covers independent contractors as well as employees.

  6. Employers Exhale Relief, Governor Vetoes Ban on Employment Arbitration Agreements

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPMichael CampbellOctober 17, 2015

    After careful consideration, Governor Brown was “not prepared to take the far-reaching step proposed by this bill for a number of reasons.” The Governor specifically referenced the California Supreme Court’s protections afforded to employees pertaining to arbitration agreements as explained in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83 (2000). Those protections include a neutral arbitrator, adequate discovery, no limitations on damages or remedies, a written decision by the arbitrator, judicial review, and limitations on arbitration costs.

  7. California Employers Exhale Relief, Governor Vetoes Ban on Employment Arbitration Agreement

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPMichael CampbellOctober 16, 2015

    After careful consideration, Governor Brown was “not prepared to take the far-reaching step proposed by this bill for a number of reasons.” The Governor specifically referenced the California Supreme Court’s protections afforded to employees pertaining to arbitration agreements as explained in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83 (2000). Those protections include a neutral arbitrator, adequate discovery, no limitations on damages or remedies, a written decision by the arbitrator, judicial review, and limitations on arbitration costs.

  8. Justices Take On Another California Rule – When an Arbitration Agreement Is Too Flawed to Enforce

    Baker & Hostetler LLPJohn LewisOctober 8, 2015

    Judge Gould differed with the majority in two respects. First, he felt the district court impermissibly relied on Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 6 P.3d 669, 697 (Cal. 2000) which was decided more than 10 years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1747 (2011). Accordingly, Armendariz’s reasoning that multiple unconscionable provisions renders an arbitration agreement’s purpose unlawful has “‘a disproportionate impact on arbitration agreements’ and should have been preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.”

  9. California Supreme Court: Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Plaintiff’s State Rights

    Jackson Lewis P.C.Sherry L. SwiecaAugust 5, 2015

    The unconscionability doctrine requires inquiry into the “commercial setting, purpose, and effect” of the contract. This, the Court explained, gives the party with superior bargaining strength a type of extra protection for which it has a commercial need without being unconscionable. (Quoting Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83, 117 (2000).)Applying these principles, the Court held that the FAA preempts a plaintiff’s right to class action procedures under the CLRA.

  10. Court Of Appeal Decides Against Arbitration Bylaw Amendment

    Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLPKeith Paul BishopJanuary 29, 2015

    Justice Rylaarsdam also found fault with the unilateral nature of Ironwood’s bylaw: “Such a one-sided provision, especially when coupled with the purported waiver of any award of ‘punitive or consequential damages,’ could be deemed unconscionable.” (Armendariz v. v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.24 Cal.4th 83, 118 (2000). Justice Rylaarsdam’s statements regarding retroactivity have some obvious echoes to U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seaborg’s opinion inGalaviz v. Berg: Here, in contrast, the venue provision was unilaterally adopted by the directors who are defendants in this action, after the majority of the purported wrongdoing is alleged to have occurred, and without the consent of existing shareholders who acquired their shares when no such bylaw was in effect.