Ontiveros v. Dhl Express (Usa), Inc.
Decision Date | 30 June 2008 |
Docket Number | No. A114848.,A114848. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | GINA ONTIVEROS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., Defendant and Appellant. |
Littler Mendelson, Henry D. Lederman, Marlene S. Muraco and Neda N. Dal Cielo for Defendant and Appellant.
The Lucas Law Firm, Kathleen M. Lucas, Michelle T. Duval; Law Offices of Lawrence A. Organ and Lawrence Anthony Organ for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant DHL Express (USA), Inc. (defendant or DHL), appeals the trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration after plaintiff Gina Ontiveros (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against defendant DHL and four other defendants,1 raising various claims related to sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation arising from her employment with defendant. Defendant claims that plaintiff's lawsuit is precluded by an arbitration agreement previously entered into by both parties. Because we conclude the trial court properly found the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable, we shall affirm the order.
On December 5, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint for damages, in which she alleged (1) sex/gender discrimination and harassment, (2) failure to prevent sex/gender discrimination and harassment, (3) retaliation for opposing forbidden practices, and (4) aiding and abetting discrimination and harassment.
On June 2, 2006, defendant filed a petition to compel arbitration and motion to stay judicial proceedings.
On July 6, 2006, the trial court denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration.
On July 19, 2006, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiff began working as a hazardous materials inspector at Airborne Express in May 1998 as a contract employee. In October 1999, she was hired as a permanent employee by Airborne Express to work as a field service supervisor.
In April 2000, plaintiff was promoted to aircraft operations supervisor for the Northern Bay Area, including Oakland International Airport. She later held the same position in another area that included San Francisco International Airport. In August 2003, defendant DHL acquired Airborne Express as a wholly owned subsidiary and, in January 2005, Airborne Express was dissolved and its employees, including plaintiff, became employees of defendant DHL.
According to plaintiff, after her April 2000 promotion, she was subjected to ongoing severe sexual harassment and retaliation.
In 2004, plaintiff took a short-term disability leave and apparently left defendant's employ in 2005.
Plaintiff signed a "Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims" (arbitration agreement or agreement) on October 18, 1999, upon being hired as a permanent employee by Airborne Express. The agreement consists of a single-page document in a small font. No representative of Airborne Express signed the agreement.
In her declaration in opposition to the motion to compel, plaintiff stated that she received the arbitration agreement as part of a packet of hiring paperwork, which her manager said to fill out; sign; and return in order to start her new job and get paid. Plaintiff further stated:
The agreement to arbitrate covered all claims between the parties, whether or not arising out of plaintiff's employment or its termination, including, but not limited to, claims for wages or benefits, claims for breach of contract or covenant, tort claims, claims for discrimination, and claims for violation of any governmental law or regulation. In addition, the agreement provided that "[t]he Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement, including but not limited to any claim that all or part of this Agreement is void or voidable." The agreement stated that arbitration would be held under the auspices of either the American Arbitration Association (AAA) or Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (JAMS), "with the designation of the sponsoring organization to be made by the party who did not initiate the claim."
The agreement further stated that each party would have the right to take the deposition of one individual and any expert witness designated by another party. "Additional discovery may be had only where the Arbitrator selected pursuant to this Agreement so orders, upon a showing of substantial need." The agreement also stated that plaintiff and defendant would share the costs of the arbitrator and that each party would pay its own costs and attorney fees, with the exception, inter alia, that if a party prevails on a statutory claim that affords the prevailing party attorney fees, the arbitrator may award reasonable fees to the prevailing party.
At the conclusion of the agreement was a sentence in all capital letters stating, "I understand that by signing this agreement I am giving up my right to a jury trial," with a line underneath where plaintiff wrote her initials. Just above her signature was another sentence in all capital letters stating, "I further acknowledge that I have been given the opportunity to discuss this agreement with my private legal counsel and have availed myself of that opportunity to the extent I wish to do so."
The trial court based its order denying the motion to compel arbitration on various factors, including, first, that defendant did not establish that it was a successor in interest to Airborne Express under the arbitration provision at issue and, second, that the written agreement was not signed by Airborne Express and defendant did not show that Airborne Express agreed to be bound by the written agreement.
In addition, the court determined that
The court further stated, inter alia, that its ruling was
The court then stated: "Having found that it is necessary for the Court to review the arbitration agreement to determine whether it is unconscionable, the Court concludes that the arbitration provision offered by DHL is permeated with [procedural and substantive] unconscionability and will not be enforced."
(1) In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 102 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669] (Armendariz), our Supreme Court articulated the five minimum requirements for lawful arbitration of nonwaivable statutory civil rights in the workplace pursuant to a mandatory employment arbitration agreement: "Such an arbitration agreement is lawful if it `(1) provides for neutral arbitrators, (2) provides for more than minimal discovery, (3) requires a written award, (4) provides for all of the types of relief that would otherwise be available in court, and (5) does not require employees to pay either unreasonable costs or any arbitrators' fees or expenses as a condition of access to the arbitration forum.'"
(2) The court then discussed the "judicially created doctrine of unconscionability," which ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Kozak
... ... Scott Davis, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Red Bull North America, Inc., Defendant and Appellant. A156234 A156238 Court of Appeal, First ... It contains no express provisions entitling the parties to propound interrogatories, requests for ... 1271 ; cf. 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 940 Ontiveros v. DHL Express (USA), Inc. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 494, 513, 79 ... ...
-
Sanchez v. Western Pizza Enterprises, Inc.
... ... 144-145; see also Ontiveros v. DHL Express (USA), Inc. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 494, 503 & fn. 2 [79 Cal.Rptr.3d 471] ( ... ...
-
Mills v. Facility Solutions Grp., Inc.
... ... (See Armendariz, supra , 24 Cal.4th at p. 113, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669 ; Ontiveros v. DHL Express (USA), Inc. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 494, 510 & fn. 11, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 471 ( ... ...
-
Leos v. Darden Rests., Inc.
... ... or are known to the employer, the covenant cannot create implied terms that contradict the express language ... An arbitration agreement that expressly exempts all claims, accrued or known, from ... See Ontiveros v. DHL Exp. (USA), Inc. [(2008)] 164 Cal.App.4th 494, 512, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 471 (invalidating ... ...
-
Annual Update of Alternative Dispute Resolution Cases and Legislation
...F. 3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2017).12. Id. at 1271.13. See Fitz v. NCR, 118 Cal. App. 4th 702 (2004); Ontiveros v. DHL Express (USA) Inc., 164 Cal. App. 4th 494 (2008); Baxter v. Genworth N. Am., 16 Cal. App. 5th 713 (2017); Davis v. Kozak, 53 Cal. App. 5th 897 (2020).14. See Mercuro v. Super. Ct.,......
-
Annual Update of Alternative Dispute Resolution Cases
...the Court held that a provision requiring confidentiality was not unconscionable.Comment: In Ontiveros v. DHL Express (USA) Inc., 164 Cal.App.4th 494 (2008), the Court of Appeal found a similar discovery restriction, which could be altered upon a showing of "substantial need," to be unconsc......
-
Adr Update: Who Decides if There Will Be a Class? Universal Protection Service v. Superior Court
...App. 4th at 789.9. Universal Protection, 234 Cal. App. 4th at 1138.10. Id.11. Id. at 1141.12. Ajamian, 203 Cal. App. 4th at 792.13. 164 Cal. App. 4th 494, 505...
-
Adr Update: Enforceability of Arbitration Clauses and Who Decides
...Id. at 360.6. Id. at 388-89.7. Id. at 392.8. Id. at 386.9. Id.10. 156 Cal. App. 4th 138 (2007).11. 160 Cal. App. 4th 1272 (2008).12. 164 Cal. App. 4th 494 (2008).13. 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).14. Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010).15. With thanks and a tip of the hat to J......