Roman

Roman v. Superior Court

Good Law
172 Cal. App. 4th 1462·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 543·92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 153
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 2009B209855California6,319 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perluss, J.

An application for employment contains an arbitration clause providing, “I agree, in the event I am hired by the company, that all disputes and claims that might arise out of my employment with the company will be submitted to binding arbitration.” Is the arbitration agreement one-sided, obligating the applicant-employee (if she is hired) to arbitrate her claims without imposing a reciprocal requirement on the employer in connection with its claims against the employee?

In her petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s order compelling arbitration of her discrimination and wrongful termination claims against her employer, Flo-Kem, Inc., under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), Gabriela Roman contends this “I agree” language manifests only a unilateral obligation to arbitrate. When the adhesive nature of the contract is also taken into account, Roman asserts the agreement to arbitrate is procedurally and substantively unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable.

The trial court properly granted Flo-Kem’s petition to compel arbitration. Absent some indicia in the agreement that arbitration is limited to the…

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.