Trending...
- Financial Solutions Inc. Receives the 2020 Best of Sheridan Wyoming Award
- Smart Baking Company products now available at Publix
- Florida Skin Center Launches Online Scheduling and Text Messaging for Patients
The appellate court decision is the first to address what California Labor Code Section 925 means when it says it applies to a contract that has been modified. Specifically, it looked at whether this modification must be to a forum-selection clause (which is the voidable provision addressed in Section 925) or can be to any provision of the contract.
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. - Floridant -- Forum-selection clauses allow the parties to agree that any disputes relating to that contract will be resolved in a specific forum or court in a particular jurisdiction. Bisnar Chase attorneys Ian Silvers and Jerusalem Beligan prevailed in the appellate court, securing a favorable ruling for their client in his employment lawsuit and clarifying the law for other California employees.
The California Court of Appeal, First District Division 4, upheld a Contra Cost County trial court's decision that the plaintiff Patrick Finch, in an employment lawsuit against his former employer, had the right to file the complaint in California instead of Ohio, despite a forum selection clause in his 2014 employment contract. The trial court denied Defendant Midwest Motor Supply Company's motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit based on the forum selection clause. Instead, it held that the forum selection clause was voidable by Mr. Finch under California Labor Code Section 925. Defendant Midwest Motor Supply Co sought writ relief in the California Court of Appeal from that trial court order.
Midwest Motor Supply Co. argued that the action should be dismissed or stayed because Finch was required under the forum-selection clause in his 2014 employment contract to litigate his lawsuit in Franklin County, Ohio. However, the trial court held that Finch's 2017 and 2018 Compensation and Annual Plan letters modified the 2014 employment agreement that contained the forum-selection clause. Because these changes were made after Jan. 1, 2017, the court concluded that they triggered Finch's right under Section 925 of the California Labor Code to void the forum selection clause.
More on The Floridant
Section 925 states that an employer shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California or deprive the employee of the protections offered by California law with respect to a controversy that arises in California. Section 925 applies to a contract entered into, modified or extended on or after Jan. 1, 2017. If Section 925 applies, the forum-selection clause is voidable by the employee. The issue at the center of the writ was what the statute means by a contract "modified". Defendant argued that it meant only a modification to the forum selection clause, while Plaintiff's position was that it meant a modification to any provision of the contract (which is consistent with the trial court ruling). Prior to this case, no appellate court had addressed what modified meant in terms of Section 925. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court's decision, affirmed that modification means any modification to the contract and rejected claims that such a holding would violate the Contracts Clause in the U.S. and California Constitutions.
Silvers and Beligan proved their deep knowledge of federal and state employment laws by prevailing in this case, said Brian Chase, senior partner at Bisnar Chase.
"Our employment lawyers go the extra mile when it comes to fighting hard to protect the rights of our clients," he said. "This was a precedent-setting, groundbreaking, first-ever decision of its kind from the appellate court. I'm proud of the time and commitment our team has poured into this case. The results are telling."
Silvers said this decision is significant because, as stated by the appellate court itself, that this was the first time an appellate court had even addressed this issue of what the statute meant by modified.
More on The Floridant
"This is significant because the appellate court held that the California Labor Section 925 is triggered when there is a modification to any provision of a contract on or after Jan. 1, 2017, and not just a modification to a forum-selection clause as argued by the Defendant," he said. "The court vindicated the plain meaning of the statute to apply to any modification to the contract."
The Appellate Court also affirmed the intent of the statute as being to provide employees based in California with a forum in California to litigate employment-related claims if the terms of his or her employment changed after Jan. 1, 2017, Silvers said. In addition, the court held that the statute is not retroactive and does not violate the Contract Clause of the U.S. and California Constitutions. Further, it held that the result of voiding the forum-selection clause does not result in a violation of the Contracts Clause because there is no substantial impairment since "the provision does not affect the substantive obligations of the contract, but only the procedures by which the parties may seek redress for violations of those obligations." Even if it had found there was a substantial impairment, the Appellate Court found that this was outweighed by the significant and legitimate public purpose of the statute.
"This victory confirms that an employer cannot make a change to any provision of a contract that contains a forum-selection clause without triggering Section 925," Silvers said. "An employer cannot get around this statute by modifying other provisions of the agreement except the forum-selection clause, and then claim that the statute does not apply." This decision is also significant because it confirmed that including modification in the statute closed this potential loophole that Defendant tried to exploit here, Silvers said.
"Hopefully this will help ensure that such forum selection clauses in California go by the wayside, as was intended by the statute."
About Bisnar Chase
Bisnar Chase represents employees' rights and those injured by defective products and acts of negligence. The firm has been featured on a number of popular media outlets including Newsweek, Fox, NBC, and ABC, and is known for its passionate pursuit of results for their clients. Since 1978, Bisnar Chase has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for victims and their families. For more information, please call 800-561-4887 or visit http://www.BestAttorney.com for a free consultation. We are located at 1301 Dove Street #120, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
The California Court of Appeal, First District Division 4, upheld a Contra Cost County trial court's decision that the plaintiff Patrick Finch, in an employment lawsuit against his former employer, had the right to file the complaint in California instead of Ohio, despite a forum selection clause in his 2014 employment contract. The trial court denied Defendant Midwest Motor Supply Company's motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit based on the forum selection clause. Instead, it held that the forum selection clause was voidable by Mr. Finch under California Labor Code Section 925. Defendant Midwest Motor Supply Co sought writ relief in the California Court of Appeal from that trial court order.
Midwest Motor Supply Co. argued that the action should be dismissed or stayed because Finch was required under the forum-selection clause in his 2014 employment contract to litigate his lawsuit in Franklin County, Ohio. However, the trial court held that Finch's 2017 and 2018 Compensation and Annual Plan letters modified the 2014 employment agreement that contained the forum-selection clause. Because these changes were made after Jan. 1, 2017, the court concluded that they triggered Finch's right under Section 925 of the California Labor Code to void the forum selection clause.
More on The Floridant
- Halfacre Construction Company hires two
- OCC Adopts Final Rule Requiring Large Banks to Provide Fair Access to Banking Services
- Kaival Brands (OTCQB: KAVL) Begins the Application Process to "Up-List" to Nasdaq
- Histria Books Announces the Release of Revelations of Byzantium
- The Antenna Company Announces Venture Debt Financing Agreement with Brabant Development Agency (BOM)
Section 925 states that an employer shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California or deprive the employee of the protections offered by California law with respect to a controversy that arises in California. Section 925 applies to a contract entered into, modified or extended on or after Jan. 1, 2017. If Section 925 applies, the forum-selection clause is voidable by the employee. The issue at the center of the writ was what the statute means by a contract "modified". Defendant argued that it meant only a modification to the forum selection clause, while Plaintiff's position was that it meant a modification to any provision of the contract (which is consistent with the trial court ruling). Prior to this case, no appellate court had addressed what modified meant in terms of Section 925. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court's decision, affirmed that modification means any modification to the contract and rejected claims that such a holding would violate the Contracts Clause in the U.S. and California Constitutions.
Silvers and Beligan proved their deep knowledge of federal and state employment laws by prevailing in this case, said Brian Chase, senior partner at Bisnar Chase.
"Our employment lawyers go the extra mile when it comes to fighting hard to protect the rights of our clients," he said. "This was a precedent-setting, groundbreaking, first-ever decision of its kind from the appellate court. I'm proud of the time and commitment our team has poured into this case. The results are telling."
Silvers said this decision is significant because, as stated by the appellate court itself, that this was the first time an appellate court had even addressed this issue of what the statute meant by modified.
More on The Floridant
- Latest ez1095 Affordable Care Act Software Offers In-House Filing For Faster Results
- Akron Biotech Signs Exclusive Global Agreement with Octapharma to Produce Virally Inactivated Human AB Serum Derived from Octaplas® for the Cell Therapy Market
- Donna Italia hires Miami Video Production Vision Movies to produce online marketing sales content
- Code18 Interactive Launches New Websites for Balmex and Balmex Adult
- Jacksonville: New Public Awareness Campaign Warns Teens That "Vaping Can Get Ugly"
"This is significant because the appellate court held that the California Labor Section 925 is triggered when there is a modification to any provision of a contract on or after Jan. 1, 2017, and not just a modification to a forum-selection clause as argued by the Defendant," he said. "The court vindicated the plain meaning of the statute to apply to any modification to the contract."
The Appellate Court also affirmed the intent of the statute as being to provide employees based in California with a forum in California to litigate employment-related claims if the terms of his or her employment changed after Jan. 1, 2017, Silvers said. In addition, the court held that the statute is not retroactive and does not violate the Contract Clause of the U.S. and California Constitutions. Further, it held that the result of voiding the forum-selection clause does not result in a violation of the Contracts Clause because there is no substantial impairment since "the provision does not affect the substantive obligations of the contract, but only the procedures by which the parties may seek redress for violations of those obligations." Even if it had found there was a substantial impairment, the Appellate Court found that this was outweighed by the significant and legitimate public purpose of the statute.
"This victory confirms that an employer cannot make a change to any provision of a contract that contains a forum-selection clause without triggering Section 925," Silvers said. "An employer cannot get around this statute by modifying other provisions of the agreement except the forum-selection clause, and then claim that the statute does not apply." This decision is also significant because it confirmed that including modification in the statute closed this potential loophole that Defendant tried to exploit here, Silvers said.
"Hopefully this will help ensure that such forum selection clauses in California go by the wayside, as was intended by the statute."
About Bisnar Chase
Bisnar Chase represents employees' rights and those injured by defective products and acts of negligence. The firm has been featured on a number of popular media outlets including Newsweek, Fox, NBC, and ABC, and is known for its passionate pursuit of results for their clients. Since 1978, Bisnar Chase has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for victims and their families. For more information, please call 800-561-4887 or visit http://www.BestAttorney.com for a free consultation. We are located at 1301 Dove Street #120, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
Source: Bisnar Chase
0 Comments
Latest on The Floridant
- The ODP Corporation Outlines Path Forward for Value Creation in Letter to Sycamore Partners, Owner of Staples
- The Lunasphere LLC Announces Partnership with Community Shield LLC
- AutoNation Announces Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2020 Earnings Conference Call and Audio Webcast Scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2021
- Tampa General Hospital And Kindred Healthcare Break Ground On New Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospital
- e Méridien Dania Beach Reopens Popular La Biblioteca de Tequila
- Correcting Injustice in Orlando, FL adds Frank Amodeo as Senior Advisor in its 2021 Criminal Justice Reform Initiatives
- Retirement Planning offices of Glenn A. Neasham opening offices in Orlando Florida
- Flex Seal Announces Partnership with Colombia's Top-Ranked Golfer, Sebastián Muñoz
- New from Down & Out Books: TWO IN THE HEAD by Eric Beetner
- ICI Homes, David Weekley Homes and Skinner Family Celebrate Seven Pines Groundbreaking
- Kreston Reeves Plans for and Delivers Future of Work with Citrix
- CEO of Industrial Giant ABB in Brazil Joins CEO Coaching International
- Another Broken Egg Cafe® Opens Strong in Orlando, Fla.
- DMS Announces #1 Rank On Best CPA Networks For Advertisers List
- Fighting Pest Problems with The Safest Pest Control Dubai Residents Can Get
- Best Advertising Methods To Attract People To Your Events Post COVID-19 by Duluth Businessman Ismail Sirdah
- Thirteen MBK Senior Living Communities Receive "2021 Best of Senior Living" Distinction
- Grassroots Advocacy Group Urges Biden Administration to Appoint a Doctoral Level Mental Health Professional to Lead SAMHSA
- Florida: Governor Ron DeSantis Applauds Federal Approval to Continue the Low-Income Pool Program
- Jacksonville: City Office and Facilities Closed Martin Luther King, Jr. Day