©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2023 Cal-Peculiarities | 413 permissibly found to be a managing agent because he oversaw nine retail stores and 100 employees, had independent and final authority to hire or fire employees within his district, and enjoyed substantial discretionary authority over daily store operations, leading to the ad hoc formulation of policy. The fact that he was not a corporate policymaker did not preclude a finding that he was a managing agent.17 21.5 Relatively Short Limitations Period California once had an unusually short statute of limitations for personal injury claims—just one year. This statute applied to most employment-related torts, including wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The statute of limitations for those claims now is two years.18 21.6 Contractually Authorized Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards The California Supreme Court has held that California employers invoking the California arbitration statute (but not the Federal Arbitration Act) can enforce agreements by which arbitral awards can be reviewed for errors of law. (See § 5.2.5.) 21.7 Use of E-Verify Some states and municipalities, concerned about unlawful immigration, required employers to use the otherwise optional E-Verify electronic employment verification system (administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) when considering job applications. Arizona enacted such a law, and the City of Lancaster, California enacted a similar ordinance. When the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenged the Arizona statute, arguing that it was preempted by federal immigration law, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the statute.19 California, however, differs from Arizona. Its Employment Acceleration Act of 2011—legislation sponsored by both business groups and the ACLU—forbids state and local governments from requiring employers to use electronic employment verification systems, except as required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds.20 California took its aversion to E-Verify a step further in 2015, forbidding employers and other persons—except as required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds—to use E-Verify to check the employment authorization status of an employee or a job applicant who has not been offered employment.21 The law imposes a $10,000 civil penalty for each violation. In addition, as of 2017, California employers must not request documents not required by federal law and must honor documents that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine. A similarly draconian penalty applies.22 21.8 Non-Signatories Can Enforce Arbitration Agreements Some companies contract with staffing agencies or other independent contractors to provide services to the company. While the company might have arbitration agreements with its own employees, the company typically would not have an arbitration agreement with the workers retained by the contractor. Under certain circumstances, however, the company can respond to a worker’s lawsuit by invoking an arbitration agreement that the worker entered into with the contractor. While the general rule is that only the parties to an arbitration agreement can seek to enforce it, several exceptions apply. One exception is equitable estoppel, which applies when the claims against a nonsignatory defendant arise from the same facts and are inherently inseparable from arbitrable claims against a signatory defendant. Another exception applies when the nonsignatory defendant is being sued for its acts as an agent of the signatory
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4