Morvant v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.
870 F. Supp. 2d 831
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Morvant and Andrews filed a putative class action on behalf of PF Chang’s restaurant workers for California wage-law claims.
- Defendants move to compel Morvant and Andrews to arbitrate under PF Chang’s Dispute Resolution Policy, which includes a class-action waiver.
- Morvant allegedly never signed the Arbitration Agreement; he contends continued employment did not amount to acceptance.
- Andrews signed an acknowledgement of the policy and its arbitration terms.
- Court finds Andrews’ claims fall under a valid Arbitration Agreement and Morvant did not prove a binding agreement to arbitrate.
- Court analyzes FAA framework and related defenses (unconscionability, public policy) as to enforceability of the arbitration terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Morvant bound to arbitrate his claims? | Morvant did not sign; continued employment does not equal acceptance. | All employees were deemed bound after policy distribution; continued employment equates acceptance. | Morvant not bound; cannot compel arbitration. |
| Is Andrews bound and are the arbitration terms enforceable, including the class waiver? | Arbitration agreement is unconscionable and class waiver undermines rights. | Concepcion allows enforcement of arbitration terms; class waiver permissible. | Andrews bound; arbitration enforced with terms including class waiver. |
| Does Concepcion apply to employment arbitration and override state precedents on class waivers? | Concepcion should not control employment-class-waiver analysis (Gentry distinctions). | Concepcion applies equally to employment and consumer contexts; overrides Discover Bank and Gentry. | Concepcion applies; class waiver not unenforceable on public policy grounds. |
| Does NLRA/Norris-LaGuardia Act public-policy analysis bar arbitration with a class waiver? | NLRA/public policy prohibits class waivers in employment arbitration. | FAA preempts such state-law concerns; NLRA/NLLaGuardia do not bar arbitration here. | Arbitration agreement enforced; no bar from NLRA/NLLaGuardia or public policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000) (procedural and substantive unconscionability framework)
- Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2011) (FAA favors enforcing arbitration per terms; invalidates Discover Bank rule)
- Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 2005) (overruled by Concepcion for FAA enforcement principle)
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1991) (Gilmer exception; arbitration of statutory rights in non-NLRA claims)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1985) (arbitration as matter of contract; scope of arbitration)
- Coneff v. AT&T Corp., 673 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2012) (Concepcion control; broad FAA interpretation preserves arbitration)
- Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 443 (Cal. 2007) (employment class-waiver scrutiny antecedent to Concepcion)