In the landmark case of Liu v. Miniso Depot, Inc., 105 Cal. App. 5th 791 (2024), the California Court of Appeal addressed the enforceability of arbitration agreements in employment contracts, with significant implications for employee rights and employer obligations. The ruling underscores the importance of fairness in arbitration provisions, particularly in employment relationships where power imbalances often exist.
Jing Liu, the plaintiff, brought a lawsuit against her employer, Miniso Depot, Inc., alleging wrongful termination, wage and hour violations, and retaliation. In response, Miniso sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Liu had signed as a condition of her employment. The agreement mandated arbitration for all employment disputes and contained various terms that Liu argued were unfair and unconscionable. She contended that the arbitration agreement should be deemed unenforceable under California law.
The Court of Appeal examined the arbitration agreement through the lens of California’s dual-pronged unconscionability test, which evaluates both procedural and substantive unconscionability.
- Procedural Unconscionability: The court found a significant degree of procedural unconscionability in the arbitration agreement. It determined that the agreement was presented to Liu on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, typical of contracts of adhesion in employment settings. Liu had no opportunity to negotiate its terms, and the agreement was a mandatory condition of employment. Additionally, the agreement’s terms were not clearly explained, and Liu’s limited bargaining power exacerbated the procedural unfairness.
- Substantive Unconscionability: The court also found the agreement to be substantively unconscionable due to several one-sided provisions. For instance, it imposed severe limitations on discovery, which could unfairly disadvantage employees in proving their claims, while allowing the employer greater access to evidence. The agreement also included a fee-shifting clause, requiring the losing party to pay arbitration costs, a provision likely to deter employees from pursuing legitimate claims due to the financial risks involved. Furthermore, the agreement lacked mutuality, as it allowed Miniso to pursue certain claims in court while compelling employees to arbitrate all disputes.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision to deny Miniso’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. This ruling reaffirms California’s strong stance on protecting employees from unfair arbitration agreements and ensuring that arbitration remains a forum for equitable dispute resolution rather than a tool for employers to suppress employee rights.
This post is an advertisement. Any comments provided do not create an attorney-client relationship.
