Warning

Info

Table of Contents
UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

(2000)

Supreme Court of California - 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669, 24 Cal. 4th 83

tl;dr:

Employees signed unilateral arbitration clauses as part of their employment agreements.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000), the California Supreme Court reviewed a case about the fairness and legality of a mandatory arbitration clause found in an employment contract. The case reached the state supreme court after two lower courts denied the defendant's request to enforce the arbitration agreement. Armendariz and fellow employees sued their employer, Foundation Health Psychcare Services, for wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under California law. The contract they had signed included an arbitration clause, but the courts found it unfair and unenforceable.

The California Supreme Court agreed, stating that to be enforceable, the arbitration agreement must meet specific minimum standards to protect employees' legal rights. These include: a neutral arbitrator, allowing fair discovery, a written decision suitable for review, and reasonable costs and fees. Additionally, the court ruled the agreement must be balanced and not impose unfair conditions on employees while relieving the employer of similar responsibilities.

This case is significant as it demonstrates that arbitration agreements in employment contracts must respect public policy and adhere to relevant laws. Courts can use the doctrine of unconscionability to nullify excessive or oppressive clauses in such agreements. This decision helps balance the interests of both employers and employees when settling disputes through arbitration rather than going to court.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingArmendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. case brief facts & holding

Facts:Plaintiffs (employees) for Defendant company executed two separate arbitration clauses...

Holding:In the employment context, a unilateral contract of adhesion forcing...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: MOSK, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory employment arbitration agreements covering state and federal antidiscrimination claims are allowed, but the specific arbitration agreement in question was unconscionable due to a damages limitation that is contrary to public policy and because it is unconscionably unilateral. The court emphasized the importance of closely examining arbitration agreements that cover unwaivable statutory rights to ensure they do not waive or impose burdens on such rights. The damages limitation in the arbitration agreement was found to apply to all claims, including statutory claims, making it illegal as it went against public policies. The Court of Appeal's decision upholding the employer's petition to compel arbitration is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal to affirm the trial court's judgment.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: BROWN, J., Concurring.—
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

Justice Brown agrees with the majority's reasoning on mandatory arbitration and statutory claims, but disagrees with their approach to apportioning arbitral costs. The majority's approach, which places the burden of all costs unique to arbitration on the employer, is too simplistic and not necessarily correct. Justice Brown believes that the issue of apportionment should be left to the arbitrator, and any issues with the arbitrator's decision should be addressed during judicial review. The majority's approach fails to consider the individual circumstances of each case, and courts cannot conclude that the payment of fees will constitute a barrier to the vindication of statutory rights without knowing the exact amount the employee must pay.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

Chat for Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.
brief-147
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.