Corporate business lawyer

Plaintiff employee sued defendant employer for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code, §§ 12900-12996, breach of an implied-in-fact contract requiring good cause for termination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and defamation. The Los Angeles County Superior Court (California) granted the employer's motion to compel arbitration and confirmed an arbitration award for the employer. The employee appealed.

At issue was a mandatory arbitration agreement that the employer and its at-will employees had purportedly entered into requiring the arbitration of claims by both sides. The court determined that a court could resolve the question of whether the agreement was illusory. The court found valid the agreement's choice-of-law clause stating it was to be governed by Texas law and the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16). The employer had a substantial relationship to Texas and engaged in interstate commerce. An arbitration contract containing a modification provision was illusory if an amendment, modification, or revocation applied to claims that had accrued or were known to the employer. If a modification provision was restricted — by express language or by terms implied under the covenant of good faith and fair dealing — so that it exempted all claims, accrued or known, from a contract change, the arbitration contract was not illusory. The Corporate business lawyer agreed with the employee that the agreement was illusory under Texas law because the employer retained the unilateral right to amend, modify, or revoke it on 30 days' advance written notice, with the change to apply to any unfiled claim.

The court reversed the orders and remanded the matter.

Appeal by the people from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) setting aside an indictment for conspiracy to commit prostitution as having been brought without reasonable or probable cause.

Defendant, owner of a telephone answering service, and co-defendant prostitutes were indicted for conspiracy to commit prostitution. Subsequently, the trial court set aside the indictment as having been brought without reasonable or probable cause and The People appealed. The reviewing court affirmed, holding that, although The People need show no more than a tacit, mutual understanding between co-conspirators to accomplish an unlawful act, both knowledge and intent must be present. The element of intent could be proved either by direct evidence, or evidence of circumstances from which the intent to further a criminal enterprise by supplying lawful goods or services could be inferred. However, an inference of intent drawn from knowledge of criminal use did not properly apply to the less serious crimes classified as misdemeanors. Positive knowledge did not establish intent to participate.

Affirmed because positive knowledge alone of criminal use of services or products to commit a misdemeanor did not establish an intent to participate.

Sponsor Ads

• Ad Space Available - Rent it Now!

Report this Page

Created on Mar 29th 2021 22:39. Viewed 218 times.

Share on APSense

Comments