Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

We have emphasized in our case law the limited nature of judicial review of contractual arbitration awards, concluding that, generally speaking, a court is not permitted to vacate an arbitration award when the award is based on errors of law. (.Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 25, 28 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 ] (Moncharsh).) We also have indicated that the scope of judicial review may be somewhat greater in the case of a mandatory employment arbitration agreement that encompasses an employee’s unwaivable statutory rights. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 106-107 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 , 6 P.3d 669 ] (Armendariz).)

In the present case involving the resolution of a statutory employment discrimination claim, an arbitrator decided in favor of an employer against the employee on the grounds that the claim was time-barred under the one-year contractual deadline for requesting arbitration. The trial court vacated the award, concluding, as explained below, that the arbitrator had plainly misapplied the relevant tolling statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.12. The Court of Appeal, while agreeing with…

I dissent from part II.A. (part A) of the majority’s decision (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 672-680), which holds this: Even if the parties to a mandatory employment arbitration agreement did not agree to arbitral conformity with rules of law or to expanded judicial review, the arbitral resolution of the employee’s statutory age discrimination claim is subject to court review if the claim was found time-barred. If the court determines that the arbitral award in the employer’s favor reflects an error of law, then the award must be vacated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(4) (section 1286.2(a)(4)), which requires vacatur when a court finds “[t]he arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.”

I cannot join in this unsupported and unprecedented move to judicialize the arbitration process. The majority misapplies section 1286.2(a)(4) and the principles articulated in Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 ] (Moncharsh) and Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 [ 99…

Altshuler Berzon, Michael Rubin, Rebecca Smullin; Lavi & Ebrahimian, N. Nick Ebrahimian, Joseph Lavi, Jordan D. Bello; The deRubertis Law Firm and David M. deRubertis for Real Party in Interest.

McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky, Cliff Palefsky and Keith Ehrman for California Employment Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

MORENO, J.—

We have emphasized in our case law the limited nature of judicial review of contractual arbitration awards, concluding that, generally speaking, a court is not permitted to vacate an arbitration award when the award is based on errors of law. ( Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 25, 28 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 ] ( Moncharsh ).) We also have indicated that the scope of judicial review may be somewhat greater in the case of a mandatory employment arbitration agreement that encompasses an employee's unwaivable statutory rights. ( Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 106-107 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 , 6 P.3d 669 ] ( Armendariz ).)

In the present case involving the resolution of a statutory employment discrimination claim, an arbitrator decided in favor of an…