Rymel

Rymel v. Save Mart Supermarkets, Inc.

Good Law
241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 832·30 Cal. App. 5th 853
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 31, 2018C085863; C085865; C085886California5,340 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Duarte, J.

*855 Plaintiffs Jose Robles, Christopher Rymel, and David Hagins sued defendant Save Mart Supermarkets, Inc., alleging various state law statutory employment claims. After successfully moving to sever, Save Mart moved to compel arbitration as to each plaintiff. The motions were heard *856 together, and the trial court denied the motions by substantively identical orders. Save Mart timely appealed in each case. The appeals lie. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1294, subd. (a).) We consolidated the appeals for oral argument and decision and shall affirm the orders denying the motions to compel arbitration.

BACKGROUND

Generally, a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) providing for arbitration of *835 employment grievances does not provide for arbitration of a worker's claims based on violations of state anti-discrimination or retaliation statutes, nor do federal labor relations laws preempt such claims. The trial court reasoned that the CBA at issue did not clearly and unmistakably provide for arbitration of the claims asserted. We agree and further conclude that the claims asserted by plaintiffs are not preempted by federal law, specifically section 301 of the Labor Management Relations…

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.