#Employment Arbitration Agreements Trial But All

He has coordinated responses to charges of employment discrimination filed with EEOC and analogous state and local agencies, including on-site investigations by agency investigators.

He assists employers in designing, implementing and enforcing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs, including mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements. He also advises clients on conducting corporate and workplace investigations, including federal and state agency investigations.In February 2019, Google ditched mandatory arbitration clauses from its employee contracts. The MeToo movement has placed the issue of employee rights.In connection with commercial litigation, he served as lead counsel for the FDIC as receiver of a number of failed financial institutions in connection with multi-million dollar commercial disputes as well as professional liability investigations, lawsuits and related insurance coverage issues. A typical arbitration agreement requires you to give up your right to sue your employer in court for a violation of your workplace rights. Instead, you agree to resolve these claims through arbitration: a private, less formal procedure in which there is no jury and you have virtually no right to appeal the decision.Charles (Chuck) Lee, Vice-Chair of the firm's Litigation Practice and Co-Chair of the firm's Labor & Employment Practice, has been with Miller & Martin since 1985 and concentrates his practice primarily on employment law, corporate/commercial litigation and federal agency investigations.Recent Trends in Employment Arbitration: What Employers Need to Know in 2019. Arrangement with an employee, mandatory arbitration agreements can be.Arbitration agreements do not, however, preclude you from filing a complaint to a government agency about discrimination.

1 While Tesla’s legal team maintains that all of Balan’s claims must be arbitrated, the U.S. Employee Cristina Balan after the tech giant accused her of criminal behavior on the online news source, The Huffington Post. On March 2, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear oral argument in a case that could test the boundaries of mandatory arbitration, and determine whether employees can be tethered to arbitration agreements for years after leaving a company.The potentially precedent-setting decision stems from a single defamation suit brought by former Tesla, Inc. He has been AV® Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell® and is admitted to practice in Tennessee and Georgia state and federal courts.

Employment Arbitration Agreements Trial But All

8 Balan took Musk up on his offer, emailing him about a product safety concern. Musk instructed employees to bring ideas or concerns to the superior best equipped to efficiently handle the issue, even if that entailed going above one’s direct manager. 5 Upon joining Tesla, Balan signed an arbitration agreement (the “Agreement”) requiring “final, binding and confidential arbitration” of “any and all disputes, claims, or causes of action, in law or equity, arising from or relating to your employment, or the termination of your employment.” 6 The Agreement further states: “you are waiving any and all rights to a jury trial but all court remedies will be available in arbitration.” 7Balan’s difficulties with her employer began in 2014, shortly after Tesla CEO Elon Musk emailed his entire staff encouraging them to disregard the idea of a traditional corporate hierarchy. 4 Notably, she helped design the battery pack for the Model S electric sedan and her initials were stamped onto the car’s battery packaging. 3During her employment with Tesla from August 2010 through April 2014, Balan engineered batteries for Tesla’s vehicles. 2 With millions of individuals across the country signing arbitration agreements as a condition of their employment, the Ninth’s Circuit’s decision could become a leading case on the topic of employment arbitration, determining when and how employers may still be susceptible to courtroom proceedings.

14 On September 11, 2017, The Huffington Post posted Tesla’s response, which proclaimed that Balan’s raised concerns were “nonsensical,” and stated that not “every email sent to senior Tesla leaders (particularly emails that are not relevant to our mission or the job at hand, or are clearly suspect or misleading) warrants a response.” 15 Tesla went on to accuse Balan of attempting to find an alternative supplier without authorization, thus spending company time working on a “secret project” without supervisory approval, booking an unapproved trip to New York at Tesla’s expense, and illegally recording conversations without permission. The article commented on the irony that while Musk was publicly touted for his email encouraging staffers to speak up, Balan was allegedly fired for doing just that. 13 But on September 8, 2017, before the award was issued, The Huffington Post published an article of an interview with Balan. 12Balan eventually brought a wrongful termination suit and the parties entered arbitration, where a final award was rendered on October 18, 2018. 11 Shortly after emailing Musk, Balan alleges she was forced out of Tesla in April 2014 due to her voiced concerns. 10 Additionally, Balan stated that Tesla appeared to award contracts for materials based on past business relations, rather than quality or price.

26The district court then turned to the issue of whether Balan’s defamation claims fell within the scope of the Agreement, stating, “Because arbitration is only required where the parties have contracted for it, ‘the exact content of the allegedly defamatory statement must be closely examined to see whether it extends to matters beyond the parties’ contractual relationship.’” 27 In reviewing whether each alleged defamatory statement arose from or related to Balan’s employment or termination, the district court found that statements about her seeking an alternative supplier, writing irrelevant emails, and working on a secret project all arguably arose from or were related to her employment and thus fell within the Agreement’s scope. 21 The district court agreed with her regarding the confidentiality clause in the Agreement, stating that such broad confidentiality clauses lead to the “harsh, one-sided result that Tesla may publicly attack Plaintiff while she may not publicly defend herself.” 22 The district court, however, did not agree with Balan’s assertion that the Agreement should be rendered unconscionable solely on the grounds that it encompassed claims originating “an indefinite amount of time after the employment relationship ends.” 23 The district court held that although Tesla “seeks to apply the Agreement to Plaintiff’s defamation claim years after her employment terminated”, this application is not wholly unexpected considering the broad language of the Agreement—that employees agree to arbitrate “any and all disputes arising from or relating to your employment.” 24 Notably, the district court questioned Tesla’s attorneys, “It’s your position that, if 30 years from now there is a newspaper article that the plaintiff finds somehow maligns her, that no matter how old she is, no matter how far away her employment was from this, that she has to arbitrate it? She has forever signed away any cause of action that might mention her prior employment?” 25 Tesla responded that it was unaware of case law examining this hypothetical time gap, and reiterated in the instant case that Balan’s claims were encompassed by the Agreement. 20Balan argued that construing the Agreement to include her defamation claim was unconscionable. 19 Tesla moved to compel arbitration, stating the Agreement with Balan encompassed her claim and thus should be adjudicated in private arbitration. 18On January 15, 2019, Balan brought a single defamation claim against Tesla for its comments to The Huffington Post, seeking damages and injunctive relief. 17 Ultimately, Tesla’s response remained live on the internet for about 15 months until she asked The Huffington Post to take it down, which the publisher did.

33 Tesla argues that the district court’s application of Morgan resulted in the improper consideration of the merits of Balan’s claim, namely what evidence would be involved in proving or disproving it, rather than whether it arose from or related to her employment. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 721 (9th Cir. 1984) rather than Ninth Circuit precedent, which only requires that Balan’s allegations “touch” her employment with Tesla. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., 729 F.2d 1163, 1167-68 (8th Cir.

42 Tesla’s attorney declined to address bifurcation, instead reiterating that the subject matter of the defamatory statement was not at issue. 41 Before oral arguments, the district court asked whether “allegations that go to criminal activity” were not arbitrable and could be split apart. 40Balan’s answering brief articulates why Tesla’s reliance on alleged improper parsing of defamatory statements may be ill-fated. 39 Balan would arguably not be permitted to split her single defamation claim across multiple lawsuits, thus the district court should not enable this. 38Lastly, Tesla argues the district court improperly split Balan’s defamation claim by allowing some statements to be arbitrated, while reserving other parts for trial. 37 Tesla maintains that even if parsed out, the statements that Balan took an unauthorized trip to New York and secretly recorded her coworkers “touch” on her employment at a minimum.