The California Unruh act website accessibility

by musa k. Article Writer

Petitioner employee sought review of an order from respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted real party in interest employer's petition to compel arbitration of the employee's class action complaint about violations of California Labor Code provisions governing the payment of wages. Nakase law office meets the issues regarding California Unruh act website accessibility in California.

 

 

The parties' employment agreement included an arbitration provision. Although most claims were subject to arbitration, the provision exempted from arbitration claims by the employer for injunctive or equitable relief in trade secrets and unfair competition actions. The court held that the agreement was unconscionable under Civ. Code, § 1670.5, subd. (a), and thus not enforceable under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1281, 1281.2, subs. (a), (b), because the one-sided nature of the claims subject to arbitration made it substantively unconscionable. Moreover, a requirement that each party bears its own attorney's fees unless awarded by the arbitrator was inconsistent with Lab. Code, § 1194, subd. (a), mandating fee awards to prevail employees. Preventing employers from imposing one-sided arbitration provisions on employees did not disfavor arbitration and thus fell within the savings clause of 9 U.S.C. § 2. The remedies available to the employer in trade secrets and unfair competition litigation would not be available in arbitration as provisional remedies under Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.8, subd. (a)(1)-(4), (b). Severance was not proper because the arbitration agreement had multiple defects.

 

 

 

The court treated the employee's purported appeal as a petition for writ of the mandate granted that writ and directed the trial court to reverse its order compelling arbitration and to enter a new and different order denying the employer's petition.

 

 

 

In an automatic direct appeal under Cal. Const. art. VI, § 11 and Cal. Penal Code § 1239(b), the defendant appealed a jury verdict entered by the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which convicted him of murder, attempted murder, robbery, conspiracy, and burglary, Cal. Penal Code §§ 187(a), 189, 664, 211, and 459, and finding special circumstances, imposed the death penalty.

 

 

 

A jury found the defendant guilty of the first-degree murders of a homeowner, her three-year-old son, and a house guest attempted premeditated murder, first-degree robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and residential burglary, and sentenced defendant to death after finding true as to defendant the special-circumstance allegations of murder during the commission of a robbery and burglary, and multiple murders, Cal. Penal Code § 190.2(a). Defendant's appeal was automatic under Cal. Penal Code § 1239(b). The court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, holding inter alia that: defendant failed to establish a strong likelihood or reasonable inference that the prosecutor's reasons for excusing prospective jurors were not race-neutral; that conditioning defendant's presence in in-chambers conferences regarding jury selection on the wearing of shackles did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights; and that denying the defendant's motion for severance deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The court further rejected the defendant's constitutional challenges to the death penalty.

 

 

 

Judgment was affirmed because, after a review of all issues, including voir dire, jury instructions, voluntaries of defendant's statements, and constitutional challenges to the death penalty, the court concluded that the sentence was proper.

Sponsor Ads

• Ad Space Available - Rent it Now!

Created on Mar 15th 2021 09:19. Viewed 228 times.

Comments