|
A United States District Court in California upheld a partial arbitration award allowing class arbitration proceedings to take place in Alameda County, but not in a county in which employees currently or recently worked.
In Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., Nos. C04-00281JSW, C 05-03145 JSW, 2006 WL 3388628 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2006), the Court denied Cintas’ petition to vacate a partial arbitration award that interpreted an employment arbitration agreement to permit class-wide arbitration proceedings only within Alameda County. Cintas, however, argued that the location of arbitration hearings is a “gateway” matter to be determined by the Court.
The Court rejected this analysis, citing Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003). In Bazzle, the U.S. Supreme Court defined “gateway” matters as those affecting the validity and scope of a binding arbitration agreement. By contrast, Cintas’ argument for vacating the award objected to the type of arbitration proceeding agreed to by the parties. Disputes over interpretations of an arbitration agreement are left for the arbitrator to decide. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84 (2002). Therefore, the issue of location was properly left for and determined by the arbitrator.
The Court held that the arbitrator’s finding that a class-wide arbitration should take place in Alameda County did not extend to a determination on whether or not the facts of this case would actually allow the class to be certified.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|