In Franco v. Greystone Ridge Condominium, the Court addressed whether a dispute was subject to an arbitration agreement. In March 2018, defendant Greystone’s employees, including plaintiff, were presented with, and asked to sign, an agreement requiring that each employee agree to submit to final and binding arbitration “[a]ny and all claims . . . relating to any aspect of . . . employment with Employer (pre-hire through post-termination).” About 10 days later, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant Greystone and other companies asserting employment-related claims. Two days after that, plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement and returned it to defendant Greystone. Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims, which plaintiff opposed on the ground the arbitration agreement failed to expressly state that claims that had already accrued, including the claims asserted in plaintiff’s complaint, were subject to arbitration. The trial court agreed with plaintiff and denied the motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeal reversed. It stated that the parties’ arbitration agreement was clear, explicit, and unequivocal with regard to the claims subject to it, and contained no qualifying language limiting its applicability to claims that had yet to accrue. On the contrary, the agreement’s reference to claims relating to “pre-hire” matters expresses an intent to cover all claims, regardless of when they accrued, that are not otherwise expressly excluded by the arbitration agreement. As such, the agreement was read to encompass all claims.

For more information, or if you need legal assistance, please contact the Wagner Legal Group, P.C. at (310) 857-5293 or fill out our contact form on the website.