“Substantial Compliance Is Not Enough: A Cautionary Ruling For Employment Arbitration Actions”

Jared Slater of Ervin Cohen & Jessup has this article, available at JD Supra, discussing the California Court of Appeal decision in Espinoza v. Superior Court, in which the court rejected an employer’s attempt to arbitrate a dispute based on the untimely submission of a filing fee. Although the lower court had found the delay to be the unintentional result of a clerical error, the appellate court held that a California statute setting forth payment requirements was mandatory and that “substantial compliance” would not suffice. Consequently, the employer was unable to avail itself of the arbitration provision in its agreement with the plaintiff employee.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s