Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services

We asked nearly 4 years ago if Armendariz (the key California Supreme Court case from 2004 on employment arbitration) was on a collision course with Concepcion (the US Supreme Court case from 2011). Concepcion said that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws that “stand[] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the

Some of the more recent cases to strike down workplace arbitration agreements complained that the agreements didn’t include a copy of the applicable arbitration provider’s rules. One of these, Wisdom v. AccentCare Inc. (pdf), is awaiting review by the California Supreme Court. Another, Mayers v. Volt Management Corp. (pdf), is the subject of a pending

In 2000, the California Supreme Court used its decision in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services to articulate minimum requirements for employment arbitration agreements. Last year, in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws that “stand[] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution