Ask a question from expert
Business and Law Assignment
14 Pages3754 Words149 Views
Added on 2020-11-23
Business and Law Assignment
Added on 2020-11-23
BookmarkShareRelated Documents
BUSINESS ANDLAW
TABLE OF CONTENTS1. TITLE..........................................................................................................................................12. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................13. FACTS RELATED WITH CASE...............................................................................................14. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK................................................................................................35. APPLICABLE LAW...................................................................................................................46. LEGAL ISSUE............................................................................................................................67. THE DECISION..........................................................................................................................68. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................99. REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................10
1. TITLECARMONA V. LINCOLN MILLENNIUM CAR WASH, INC. (2014)2. INTRODUCTIONThe present report is a case note of a law suit between a group of certain employees whowere Spanish against two car wash companies namely, Lincoln Millennium car wash Inc. andSilver wash. Issue of this case revolved around the arbitration agreement between employer andemployee which was in English with partial translation to Spanish and employees could not readEnglish. The whole case is present under various headings and case note is prepared. Plaintiffs and respondents: Esteban H. Carmona and et.alDefendant and Appellant: Lincoln Millennium car wash and et.al The case was decided by: Superior court of Los Angeles CountyIssue: In this case, a putative class action has been filed by employees against car washfor alleged wage hour violation on the basis of not disclosing terms of agreement which wasprinted in English language to them. They all were Spanish and cannot read English. Main clauserelated with resolution of any dispute through arbitration and compensation of litigation cost wasalso not explained to them either. Another fact mentioned in the agreement was that, did trialcourt err in passing the decision and abused its power of discretion in pronouncing the judgmenton the case.Importance of case: The case is an important lawsuit in present scenario as it protectsrights and interest of employees. It also stops unnecessary exploitation of employees and staff byemployer by inserting unethical and wrong terms in the employment agreement. Anotherimportance of this proceeding was that court does not entertain any case in which unethicalpractice is being performed by employer and this is in favor of the employees which leads totheir development and growth.3. FACTS RELATED WITH CASEPhases of case and explaining what happened in the case: Case scenario:In this case the car work companies hired a number of employees and their nativelanguage was Spanish they were incapable of reading English. The agreement of employment1
was written in English. In hiring of employees, they were given with an agreement to sign inaccording to which any dispute arising between in course of employment between employer andemployee will be referred to arbitrations. The employees were also required to keep all workinformation confidential and to address any problem first with the management of car washbefore discussing it with third party. The arbitration clause and confidential provision wasexplained in Spanish. In addition to this, a detailed confidentially provision was included inagreement stating the relief that can be sought in form of injunction and compensation oflitigation cost in event of breach. This section was not translated in Spanish. When agreementwas signed up by employees the employer did not explain them the part which was written inEnglish and employee did not understand what arbitration means and they are waiving of theirright to go to court.The trial court: Upon recognition of the actual situation a case was filed on employer by employee foralleged wage hour violation in trial court. The car was filed a petition on court to refer the case toArbitration as per the agreement. Ruling by trial court:The trial court rejected petition to enforce arbitration as per agreement and refuse toenforce it stating that agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable. At first it was held thatagreement is procedurally unconscionable as facts were found that Car Wash Company made theagreement on the basis of 'take it or leave it'. The rules of American Arbitration Associationwere not provided and no sufficiency time to employees given to read and understand theagreement. Only some part of agreement of English term were translated into Spanish andchoose to not to translate certain key provisions. This amounted to procedural unconscionably. Court considers agreement substantive unconscionable on the ground of lack ofmutuality. It was stated that appellant can sought the claim in form of injunctive relief andcompensation of damaged but plaintiffs were restricted to arbitration. On the basis of bothunconscionabilities , court refused to enforce the agreement to refer case to arbitration.Superior court of Los Angeles County: an appeal was made to California court ofappeal questioning the judgement of trial court an enforcement of the agreement. The petition tojudge the enforceability of agreement the arbitration agreement is reviewed de novo as perGeneral principles of California contract law.'" (Baker v. Osborne Development Corp.2
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.