Giuliano

In this breach of contract action, defendant employer appeals from the denial of its motion to compel arbitration pursuant to plaintiff’s employment contract. Defendant contends that plaintiff’s right to a judicial forum for his unpaid wages claim under Labor Code section 229 is preempted by section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act ( 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; FAA), which mandates the enforcement of arbitration clauses in contracts involving interstate commerce. (Perry v. Thomas (1987) 482 U.S. 483, 490-492 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 426 , 107 S.Ct. 2520 ].) Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s “garden variety” breach of contract action is not subject to the minimum requirements for arbitration set forth in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 , 6 P.3d 669 ] (Armendariz), which applies to unwaivable claims that are “carefully tethered to statutory or constitutional provisions” (Boghos v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (2005) 36 Cal.4th 495, 508 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 787 , 115 P.3d 68 ] (Boghos)), such as discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) or…