In a recent column for the LA Daily Journal, Los Angeles partner Steve Katz discussed the implications of conflicting decisions by the California Supreme Court that attempt to navigate competing concerns of the Federal Arbitration Act and California employment laws.
At issue is whether certain arbitration proceedings should be more informal, or more consistent with the practices and standards of civil litigation. In the most recent case before the California Supreme Court (OTO, LLC vs. Kho), the court’s majority agreed with the employee — and the labor commissioner — that the “arbitral process is so inaccessible and unaffordable ... that it does not offer an effective means for resolving wage disputes.”
The full article is available here (subscription required).