Nyulassy

Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Good Law
120 Cal. App. 4th 1267·16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1220·2004 Daily Journal DAR 9159·21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1001
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 27, 2004H026704California7,317 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walsh, J.

Our Supreme Court has upheld employment agreements that require the employee to arbitrate disputes, so long as the arbitration clause does not impair the employee’s statutory rights and is not unconscionable. (See Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 , 6 P.3d 669 ] (Armendariz).) We are called upon here to examine whether a mandatory employment arbitration agreement—executed by the employee in connection with the settlement of a previous dispute with the employer’s predecessor after advice from the employee’s attorney—is unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable.

Plaintiff Fred Nyulassy sued his employer, defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, alleging that defendant demoted him in retaliation for his protected workplace activity (i.e., complaints about treatment of employees and resistance to employer-sanctioned illegal activity). Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful demotion in violation of public policy, and violation of section 6310 of the Labor Code. Defendant moved to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings (motion), based…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.