|
In compelling arbitration of an employment dispute, a federal district court in Puerto Rico rejected the employee’s argument that a language barrier vitiated her consent. However, the Court agreed that the California venue provision was unreasonable and thus required the arbitration to take place in Puerto Rico.
In Sanchez-Santiago v. Guess, Inc., Civil No. 06-1887(SEC), 2007 WL 2823675 (D. P.R. Sept. 28, 2007), Sanchez, an employee at a Guess store in Puerto Rico, suffered medial complications during her pregnancy. When her employment was terminated, she sued Guess for allegedly discriminating on the basis of sex and disability.
In response to the discrimination suit, Guess filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement that Sanchez signed prior to her employment. Sanchez opposed the motion on two grounds.
First, Sanchez argued that her waiver of the judicial forum was not knowing or voluntarily because she had only a basic knowledge of English. In rejecting this argument, the Court explained that under the Federal Arbitration Act, arbitration agreements must be enforced if they comply with state law governing contracts in general.
In keeping with that principle, the Court treated Sanchez’s language barrier argument as an argument that her consent was given in “error.” However, as the Court noted, a language barrier is not the type of error that renders consent a nullity. Moreover, Sanchez did not attempt to resolve any misunderstanding by asking questions about the agreement.
Sanchez also argued that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it placed venue in California, far from Puerto Rico. The Court agreed that the venue provision was unreasonable because the cost and inconvenience of travel would deprive Sanchez of her statutory claim. Accordingly, the Court issued an order compelling arbitration, but required arbitration to take place in Puerto Rico.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|