Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2023 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
cluster 786719green1 sentence2013In the collective bargaining context, the parties “must be particularly clear” about their intent to arbitrate statutory discrimination claims.’ [Citation.] A waiver in a collective bargaining agreement is sufficiently clear if it is found in an explicit arbitration clause. ‘Under this approach, the [collective bargaining agreement] must contain a clear and unmistakable provision under which the employees agree to submit to arbitration all [state and federal statutory] causes of action arising out of their employment.’ [Citation.] A waiver in a collective bargaining agreement may also be suffi | 1 | 1 |
Peabody Holding Co. v. United Mine Workers of Americagreen1 sentence2013In the collective bargaining context, the parties “must be particularly clear” about their intent to arbitrate statutory discrimination claims.’ [Citation.] A waiver in a collective bargaining agreement is sufficiently clear if it is found in an explicit arbitration clause. ‘Under this approach, the [collective bargaining agreement] must contain a clear and unmistakable provision under which the employees agree to submit to arbitration all [state and federal statutory] causes of action arising out of their employment.’ [Citation.] A waiver in a collective bargaining agreement may also be suffi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vasquez v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2023A “waiver of the right to prosecute a statutory violation in a judicial forum is only effective if it is explicit, ‘ “clear and unmistakable.” ’ ” (Cortez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 12 , quoting Penn Plaza, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 254 ; Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 .) “[I]n determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and 13 the inclusion of specific contractual provisions.” (Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 , citing Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 C 2021In the collective bargaining context, the parties “must be particularly clear” about their intent to arbitrate statutory . . . claims.’ (Carson v. Giant Food, Inc. (4th Cir. 1999) 175 F.3d 325 , 331.) A waiver in a collective bargaining agreement is sufficiently clear if it is found in an explicit arbitration clause. ‘Under this approach, the [collective bargaining agreement] must contain a clear and unmistakable provision under which the employees agree to submit to arbitration all [state and federal statutory] causes of action arising out of their employment.’ (Carson, at p. 331.)” ( Vasquez | 5 | 2017–2023 |
Carson v. Giant Food, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021In the collective bargaining context, the parties “must be particularly clear” about their intent to arbitrate statutory . . . claims.’ (Carson v. Giant Food, Inc. (4th Cir. 1999) 175 F.3d 325 , 331.) A waiver in a collective bargaining agreement is sufficiently clear if it is found in an explicit arbitration clause. ‘Under this approach, the [collective bargaining agreement] must contain a clear and unmistakable provision under which the employees agree to submit to arbitration all [state and federal statutory] causes of action arising out of their employment.’ (Carson, at p. 331.)” ( Vasquez 2021In the collective bargaining context, the parties “must be particularly clear” about their intent to arbitrate statutory . . . claims.’ (Carson v. Giant Food, Inc. (4th Cir. 1999) 175 F.3d 325 , 331.) A waiver in a collective bargaining agreement is sufficiently clear if it is found in an explicit arbitration clause. ‘Under this approach, the [collective bargaining agreement] must contain a clear and unmistakable provision under which the employees agree to submit to arbitration all [state and federal statutory] causes of action arising out of their employment.’ (Carson, at p. 331.)” ( Vasquez | 3 | 2000–2021 |
Cortez v. Doty Bros. Equip. Co.
green
1 sentence2023A “waiver of the right to prosecute a statutory violation in a judicial forum is only effective if it is explicit, ‘ “clear and unmistakable.” ’ ” (Cortez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 12 , quoting Penn Plaza, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 254 ; Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 .) “[I]n determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and 13 the inclusion of specific contractual provisions.” (Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 , citing Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 C | 1 | 2023–2023 |
14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett
green
1 sentence2023A “waiver of the right to prosecute a statutory violation in a judicial forum is only effective if it is explicit, ‘ “clear and unmistakable.” ’ ” (Cortez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 12 , quoting Penn Plaza, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 254 ; Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 .) “[I]n determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and 13 the inclusion of specific contractual provisions.” (Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 , citing Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 C | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences2023“Under this approach, the [collective bargaining agreement] must contain a clear and unmistakable provision under which the employees agree to submit to arbitration all [state and federal statutory] causes of action arising out of their employment.” ’ ” ( Vasserman, supra, at pp. 246-247 , quoting Vasquez, supra, at p. 435 .) Applying those standards here, the question is whether the arbitration provisions include an explicitly stated, clear and unmistakable intent to waive the right to a judicial forum for the specific statutory causes of action Tielemans has alleged. 2023A “waiver of the right to prosecute a statutory violation in a judicial forum is only effective if it is explicit, ‘ “clear and unmistakable.” ’ ” (Cortez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 12 , quoting Penn Plaza, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 254 ; Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 .) “[I]n determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and 13 the inclusion of specific contractual provisions.” (Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 , citing Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 C | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp.
green
2 sentences2023A “waiver of the right to prosecute a statutory violation in a judicial forum is only effective if it is explicit, ‘ “clear and unmistakable.” ’ ” (Cortez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 12 , quoting Penn Plaza, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 254 ; Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 .) “[I]n determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and 13 the inclusion of specific contractual provisions.” (Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 , citing Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 C 2023A “waiver of the right to prosecute a statutory violation in a judicial forum is only effective if it is explicit, ‘ “clear and unmistakable.” ’ ” (Cortez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 12 , quoting Penn Plaza, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 254 ; Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 .) “[I]n determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and 13 the inclusion of specific contractual provisions.” (Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 , citing Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 C | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.