138 | 2023 Cal-Peculiarities ©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 128 Id. at 13. 129 Section 10(a) of the FAA empowers courts to vacate an arbitral award only where (1) the award was procured through corruption, fraud, or undue means, (2) the arbitrator was corrupt or evidently partial, (3) the arbitrator committed prejudicial misconduct such as refusing to hear material evidence, or (4) the arbitrator exceeded powers or so imperfectly executed them that a definite award on the subject matter submitted was not made. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). 130 The Supreme Court decision is Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008). A case holding that the “manifest disregard” doctrine remains viable after Hall Street is Kashner Davidson Securities Corp. v. Mscisz, 531 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008) (vacating arbitration award based on manifest disregard of the law). 131 Siegel v. Prudential Ins. Co., 67 Cal. App. 4th 1270 (1998). 132 Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Sup. Court, 48 Cal. 4th 665, 669-70 (2010) (trial court properly vacated arbitrator’s award that “clearly erred in ruling that the employee’s claim was time-barred,” because award would have deprived the employee of “a hearing on the merits of an unwaivable statutory employment claim”). 133 Brown v. TGS Management Co., 57 Cal. App. 5th 303 (2020). 134 See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1286.2 (ground for vacating arbitration award), 1286.6 (grounds for correcting arbitration award). 135 Crowell v. Downey Cmty. Hosp. Found., 95 Cal. App. 4th 730 (2002) (parties cannot agree to expand jurisdiction of court to provide judicial review of arbitration awards beyond that provided by statute). 136 Cable Connections v. DirecTV, 44 Cal. 4th 1334, 89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 229 (2008). The Supreme Court’s reasoning suggests that the parties could also contract to vacate an award that lacks substantial evidence to support it. 137 Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 128 S. Ct. 1396, 1404-05 (2008). 138 Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1286.2(a)(4), 1286.6(b). 139 Cable Connections v. DirecTV, 44 Cal. 4th at 1340, 89 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 234. 140 Cummings v. Future Nissan, 128 Cal. App. 4th 321 (2005). 141 Little v. Auto Steigler, Inc., 29 Cal. 4th 1064, 1072 (2003). 142 Alvarez v. Altamed Health Servs. Corp., 60 Cal. App. 5th 572 (2021) (also citing lack of clarity as to the procedure to follow in the second arbitration, which itself increases costs of litigating issues). 143 Lab. Code § 925. Section 925, effective 2017, not only invalidates mandatory forum-selection and choice-of-law provisions but creates, in subdivision (c), a right of action for employees subjected to such provisions: (a) An employer shall not require 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: (1) Require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California. (2) Deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California. (b) Any provision of a contract that violates subdivision (a) is voidable by the employee, and if a provision is rendered void at the request of the employee, the matter shall be adjudicated in California and California law shall govern the dispute. (c) In addition to injunctive relief and any other remedies available, a court may award an employee who is enforcing his or her rights under this section reasonable attorney fees. (d) For purposes of this section, adjudication includes litigation and arbitration. (e) This section shall not apply to a contract with an employee who is in fact individually represented by legal counsel in negotiating the terms of an agreement to designate either the venue or forum in which a controversy arising from the employment contract may be adjudicated or the choice of law to be applied. 144 Midwest Motor Supply Co. v. Superior Court (Finch), 56 Cal. App. 5th 702 (2020). 145 Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 238 Cal. App. 4th 227, 246-47 (2015). 146 Id. at 247-56. 147 Id. at 257. 148 Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, LP, 237 Cal. App. 4th 141 (2015). 149 Id. at 146. 150 Id. 151 Id. at 144-45. 152 Id. at 144. 153 Id. at 144-45. 154 Id. at 160. 155 Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal. 4th 1083, 1094 (1992). The high court has acknowledged that the Legislature, not the judiciary, makes public policy in the employment arena: ‘public policy’ as a concept is notoriously resistant to precise definition, and … courts should venture into this area, if at all, with great care and due deference to the judgment of the legislative branch, ‘lest they mistake their own predilections for public policy which deserves recognition at law.’ … [C]ourts ‘should proceed cautiously’ if called upon to declare public policy absent some prior legislative expression on the subject.” Id. at 1095 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4