January 19, 2020

January 17, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 16, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

California Court of Appeal Enforces Contractor’s Agreement to Arbitrate Misclassification Claims Out of State

On Monday, July 21, 2014, the California Court of Appeal issued its opinion in Galen v. Redfin Corp., A138642.  This case is important for two reasons:  (1) the court upheld an arbitration agreement between a Seattle-based company and a California plaintiff challenging his status (and that of the putative class) as an independent contractor (v. employee), even though the agreement provided for the application of Washington law and a Washington venue; and (2) it reinforces California’s strong policy of enforcing forum-selection clauses, a policy that is relevant outside the context of arbitration, such as in the noncompete context.

On January 16, 2013, Scott Galen filed a putative class action against Redfin Corporation, a real estate firm.  Galen alleged that Redfin misclassified its Contract Field Agents as independent contractors and asserted claims for unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest periods, inaccurate and untimely wage statements, waiting time penalties, and unreimbursed business expenses.

Redfin and Galen had entered into a “Field Agent Independent Contractor Agreement,” which expressly stated that Galen would perform his services for Redfin as an independent contractor.  The agreement further required the binding arbitration of all disputes “arising out of or related to” the agreement.  Notably, the agreement required binding arbitration to take place in Washington state under Washington law, and allowed the prevailing party at arbitration to recover attorneys’ fees and costs.  The parties did not dispute that the arbitration clause was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

Finding that Galen’s misclassification claims arose out of the agreement, the Court distinguishedElijahjuan v. Superior Court, (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 15.  The Court highlighted that the Redfin agreement was the very instrument that designated Galen as an independent contractor.  As such, the dispute regarding Galen’s classification was necessarily “arising out of or related to” the agreement.  The Court of Appeal went a step further, and concurred with Justice Grimes’ dissent in Elijahjuan: “When state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: The conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA.”

The Court then analyzed whether the agreement was unconscionable.  The adhesive nature of the contract, Redfin’s failure to attach the American Arbitration Association rules, and the lack of highlighting or capitalized letters in the arbitration provision were insufficient evidence that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable.  Similarly, neither the mutual attorney fee provision nor the requirement that arbitration proceed in Washington were sufficient to establish that the agreement was substantively unconscionable.  The Court emphasized that a party who has freely negotiated away his right to a California forum bears a “heavy burden” of establishing that the selected forum would deprive him of an adequate remedy.  Indeed, the Court markedly reaffirmed California’s strong policy of enforcing forum-selection clauses, “regardless of the inherent additional expense and inconvenience of litigating claims in a distant forum.”

Copyright © 2020, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Jennifer Redmond, Labor and Employment Lawyer, Sheppard Mullin
Partner

Jennifer Redmond is a partner in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco and Palo Alto offices and is co-chair of the firm's Noncompete and Trade Secrets Team.

Areas of Practice

Jennifer Redmond specializes in executive disputes and negotiations, negotiating and litigating restrictive covenants, trade secrets litigation, and whistleblower litigation. She writes regularly on the topic of restrictive covenants in California and assists in the structuring of transactions and relationships to support the use of restrictive covenants....

415.774.2910
Nora Stiles, Employment Attorney, Sheppard Mullin Law Firm
Associate

Nora Stilestein is an associate in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm's Los Angeles office. 

Education

J.D., University of California, Los Angeles, 2011, Moot Court Honors Program

B.A., Pennsylvania State University, 2006, Phi Beta Kappa

213-617-5589