18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

222 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition called "Arbitration Agreement for CA – ABC Phones of NC" which displayed the agreement and curriculum course, which required acknowledgement of the terms. Id. at *18. The agreement covered claims for “non- payment or incorrect payment of compensation and benefits, including, but not limited to, claims for salary, wages, overtime, premium pay, commissions, bonuses, severance, meal and rest periods, penalties, employee fringe benefits, stock options, and the like." Id . at *18-19. Plaintiffs argued that Defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence that they assented to the arbitration agreement, as they did not specifically recall what documents they were required to sign. The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument. It found that since the LMS courses displayed the terms and required consent, Defendant established that Plaintiffs gave their consent digitally to the arbitration agreement. Id . at *29-30. Plaintiffs did not argue there was a lawful objection to the agreement or insufficient consideration, and therefore the Court concluded that Plaintiffs assented to viable contracts under California law. Plaintiffs also contended that the agreements were procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The Court disagreed. It ruled that in the agreement, the only provisions of the arbitration program that appeared substantively unconscionable were those granting unilateral amendment and termination of the dispute resolution program. Id . at *48. The Court noted that the agreement was not permeated by unconscionability, and the provisions regarding amendment and termination were not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, and thus could be severed from the agreement. Id . at *49. For these reasons, the Court severed the amendment and termination provisions from the agreement, and granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Sonico, et al. v. Charter Communication, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15585 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2021). Plaintiff brought a putative class action in state court alleging violations of various California wage & hour laws. Defendants removed the action and moved to compel arbitration on the basis that Plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate the underlying claims when he was hired by Time Warner Cable ("TWC") in 2014, which later merged with Defendant. Plaintiff opposed arbitration on the basis that he had opted-out of a subsequent arbitration agreement (the "Solution Channel Agreement" or "SCA") presented to employees after TWC merged with Defendant. Plaintiff argued that he had entered into the SCA before opting-out and it therefore superseded the first arbitration agreement, while Defendants maintained that Plaintiff’s opt-out decision left the first agreement in effect. Plaintiff completed the onboarding process and accepted an online offer for employment with TWC and thereafter accepted the JAMS Arbitration Agreement. Two years later Defendant acquired TWC and launched Solution Channel, an exclusive means of resolving preemployment or employment-related legal disputes through a multi-step claims process that culminated, if necessary, in a final and binding arbitration. The SCA formally bound both parties to arbitration in the event this internal review procedure did not resolve the claim. Defendants provided documentary evidence establishing Plaintiff’s receipt of the SCA and his subsequent decision to opt-out and agreed that Plaintiff timely opted-out of the SCA. Plaintiff argued that the SCA superseded the JAMS Agreement, and then was subsequently rendered non-binding on Plaintiff when he opted- out, thereby leaving no arbitration agreement between the parties. The Court found that Plaintiff did not enter into the SCA such that it superseded the JAMS Agreement. Second, the Court held that the JAMS Agreement was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable, and therefore it determined that the agreement was enforceable. The agreement required Plaintiff to waive his right to a jury trial if he raised an employment issue that was not arbitrable, which the Court opined was prohibited by California law. While the jury trial waiver provision was substantively unconscionable, the Court ruled that severance was appropriate because the contract contained a severability provision. As such, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and severed the predispute jury trial waiver from the JAMS Agreement. Tizekker, et al. v. Bel-Air Bay Club Ltd. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6829 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2021). Plaintiffs, a banquet server and a bartender, filed a class and collective e action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for all hours worked, failed to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, failed to pay all tips due, failed to provide wage statements, and failed to timely pay wages following termination or resignation in violation of state and federal labor laws. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate ("Agreement"), which they each signed at the commencement of their employment. The Court granted the motion. Defendant argued that the Court should compel arbitration because Plaintiffs’ claims arose from their employment with Defendant and thus fell within the scope of the Agreement. Plaintiffs conceded that they signed the Agreement, and that the Agreement was valid and enforceable. However, Plaintiffs requested that the Court "provide clarity and direction to the arbitrator" regarding two purported ambiguities in