Galen v. Redfin Corp., No. A138642 (D1d1 July 21, 2014)
An arbitration clause in plaintiff’s employment contract says that all disputes “arising out of or related to this Agreement . . . shall be resolved by binding arbitration within the State of Washington.” Unsurprisingly, the court holds that a broad clause like that encompasses a statutory claim alleging misclassification as an independent contractor. As the California Supreme Court recently addressed in the class action context , the employee/independent contractor distinction turns principally whether the employment contract gives the company the right to control the worker’s performance. So a dispute over classification certainly relates to the agreement. Nor does the court find the arbitration agreement to be unconscionable. Its obligations are mutual and the fact that it provides for prevailing party attorney’s fees and choice of venue in defendant’s home state did not make it fundamentally unfair.
Reversed.
**Note: Review granted, November 12, 2014.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's Not a Debate
Taylor v. Tesla , No. A168333 (D1d4 Aug. 8, 2024) Plaintiffs in this case are also members of a class in a race discrimination class action ...
-
RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi , No. A143781 (D1d3 Sept. 29, 2017) In this real estate warranty case, the court affirms a summary judgment in ...
-
Pollock v. Superior Court , No. B321229 (D2d1 Jul. 31, 2023) Back in 2019, the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 to inc...
No comments:
Post a Comment