Sparks
Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child & Family Services
Opinion
Concurrence in Part
Turner, J.
I respectfully dissent from the determination to affirm the order denying the petition to compel arbitration.
First, California contract law provides when an employee signs an acknowledgment of receipt of an employee handbook, she or he is bound by its contents including an agreement to arbitrate. (24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1215 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 ] [acknowledgement referred to arbitration provision in employee handbook]; Boys Club of San Fernando Valley, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1271-1272 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 587 ] [party bound by incorporation of a contract into a performance bond]; Ware v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 35, 41 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 791 ] [broker’s signature on application that referred not to arbitration but to exchange rules which contained an agreement to arbitrate disputes]; Gear v. Webster (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 57, 61 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 255 ] [Realtor who agreed to abide by association bylaws bound by arbitration agreement contained therein]; see Adajar v. RWR Homes, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 563, 569 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 17 ]; Knight et al., Cal. Practice Guide:…
Lead Opinion
Mosk, J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services (defendant) appeals from an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of the wrongful termination claims of its former employee, plaintiff Perry Sparks (plaintiff). Defendant relies upon an arbitration clause in its 2006 employee handbook (Handbook), which plaintiff acknowledged he received. We hold that plaintiff is not bound by the arbitration clause because that clause was included within a lengthy employee handbook; the arbitration clause was not called to the attention of plaintiff, and he did not specifically acknowledge or agree to arbitration; the Handbook stated that it was not intended to create a contract; the Handbook provided that it could be amended unilaterally by defendant and thus rendered any agreement illusory; the specific rules referred to in the arbitration clause were not provided to plaintiff; and the arbitration clause is unconscionable.
*1515 PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Complaint
Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination complaint against defendant, his former employer. Plaintiff alleged he was initially hired as a temporary employee in January 2007, he was permanently hired in…