Call Our Free Helpline Now 888-500-8469

California Legal News

California Supreme Court Dismisses Wisdom v. AccentCare, Inc.

Posted by Eric Kingsley | Jul 31, 2013 | 0 Comments

In an interesting development, the California Supreme Court dismissed review in Wisdom v. AccentCare, Inc. because the parties had reached a settlement. The Wisdom case in the Court of Appeal had declared that an arbitration agreement signed as part of an employment application was procedurally unconscionable.

Ca supreme court seal

The Court of Appeal opined that, “We agree with the trial court that there is abundant evidence that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable. The contract, being one of adhesion, was oppressive. It was given to plaintiffs upon their application for employment. This situation leads to inherent unconscionability because of the unequal bargaining power of the parties and the nature of the relationship. There was no evidence that the plaintiffs in this case were highly sought-after skilled employees who individually negotiated the details of their employment relationship with AccentCare.” Wisdom v. AccentCare, Inc., 202 Cal. App. 4th 591 (2012) review granted and opinion superseded, 273 P.3d 513 (Cal. 2012) and review dismissed, cause remanded, S200128, 2013 WL 3821633 (Cal. July 24, 2013)

The Court of Appeal also concluded that where the language the agreement was “The same must be said of the arbitration agreement at issue here. The phrases, ‘I hereby agree[,]' ‘I further agree,' and ‘I agree' indicate only one party is agreeing to submit all disputes to arbitration, and that party is the one whose signature appears at the bottom of the form.” As such since the agreement was not bilateral in nature the agreement was substantively unconscionable as well. The Court therefore deemed the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

As the matter is now dismissed an interesting question now arises whether or not the Court of Appeal case may be relied on as authority. The answer is no. California Rule of Court 8.528 indicates that in such a circumstance unless the California Supreme Court states otherwise the initial grant of review depublishes the case and it continues to be depublished after dismissal of review. There is only one other arbitration case that the California Supreme Court has on its docket that addresses unconscionability. In Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. that issue relates to AT&T v. Concepcion so the core Armendariz issue will not be tested, just its viability post-Concepcion.

Additional Resources

CA Supreme Court

About the Author

Eric Kingsley

In practice since 1996, attorney and firm co-founder Eric B. Kingsley has litigated complex cases and authored numerous appellate briefs in both state and federal court on behalf of the California law firm of Kingsley & Kingsley, including over 150 class actions. Mr. Kingsley concentrates his pra...

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

We Hold Employers Accountable - Get Help Now

At Kingsley & Kingsley, we understand that you need help with your employment case now. A legal professional at our Los Angeles law firm can speak with you for a free initial consultation to help you with your situation. We also take most cases on a contingency fee basis, which means that you do not pay any fees unless you win or recover compensation. Call 888-500-8469

Menu