Rebolledo v. Tilly's, Inc. CA4/3
228 Cal. App. 4th 900
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Rebolledo worked for Tilly’s in two periods (2000–2001 and 2002–2012); she filed a putative class wage action in December 2012.
- The operative 2001 arbitration agreement excluded from arbitration: workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and “matters governed by the California Labor Commissioner” (including matters within its jurisdiction).
- The 2004 agreement also contained an arbitration clause, but with fewer details than 2001; Rebolledo signed it, Employer did not sign it.
- The 2005 handbook acknowledgement contained arbitration language but lacked Employer’s signature and was later challenged as a modification; there were arguments the document was translated and understood, given Rebolledo’s claimed language barriers.
- The trial court denied Employer’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) the 2001 and 2004 agreements expressly excluded Labor Commissioner matters from arbitration, (ii) the 2005 modification was unenforceable, and (iii) the Labor Commissioner had jurisdiction over the asserted wage claims, so they were not arbitrable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory wage claims are excluded from arbitration | Rebolledo argues the 2001 agreement excludes “matters governed by” or “within the jurisdiction” of the Labor Commissioner, thereby excluding wage claims. | Employer contends the exclusion is misinterpreted; wage claims can be arbitrated. | Yes, wage claims are expressly excluded. |
| Whether the 2004 and 2005 agreements modify or supersede the 2001 agreement | Modification required signatures of three executives; 2005 lacks such signatures and is illusory/unconscionable. | Employer argues 2005 is a valid modification or summary of prior terms. | 2005 modification unenforceable; 2001 remains controlling; 2004 lacks mutuality. |
| Whether the Labor Commissioner’s jurisdiction excludes wage claims from arbitration | Labor Commissioner has broad authority; wage claims fall within its jurisdiction and thus are nonarbitrable. | Arbitration may govern wage claims regardless of forum. | Yes, Labor Commissioner jurisdiction excludes wage claims from arbitration. |
| Whether the arbitration clause was enforceable given language and translation issues | Evidence shows difficult language access and translation; documents presented without proper translation; unconscionable. | Arbitration provisions are valid if not unconscionable. | Court did not need to reach unconscionability; wage claims remain excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Post v. Palo/Haklar & Associates, 23 Cal.4th 942 (Cal. 2000) ( Labor Commissioner jurisdiction; Berman hearing procedures and forum choice)
- Noble v. Draper, 160 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) ( Labor Commissioner jurisdiction limits; administrative claims not necessarily precluded)
- Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 57 Cal.4th 1109 (Cal. 2013) ( Supreme Court on arbitration and labor claims post-Concepción)
- Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center, 220 Cal.App.4th 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) ( Standards for determining arbitrability; contract interpretation)
- Victoria v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.3d 734 (Cal. 1985) ( Arbitration scope and contract interpretation principles)
- Concepcion (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion), 563 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2011) ( Preemption and arbitration vs. class actions (context))