Reynolds v. Cornerstone Staffing Solutions

Filed 9/5/06 Reynolds v. Cornerstone Staffing Solutions CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JOSIE REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

CORNERSTONE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A110952

(Alameda County

Super. Ct. No. HG05198946)

Defendant CornerStone Staffing, Inc. (CornerStone) appeals from an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of claims for disability discrimination and unfair business practices, among other causes of action, asserted by its former employee, plaintiff Josie Reynolds. CornerStone contends the trial court erred in concluding that the arbitration agreement between the parties is unconscionably one-sided and thus unenforceable under Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 (Armendariz). Although we consider the question to be exceptionally close, we conclude that CornerStone is correct and shall reverse.

Factual and Procedural History

On February 15, 2005, Reynolds filed a complaint against CornerStone alleging causes of action for disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12920 et seq.), wrongful termination in violation of Labor Code section 132a, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unlawful business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. In lieu of an answer, CornerStone filed a petition to compel arbitration of Reynolds's claims and to stay the action pending arbitration. CornerStone's petition alleged that the parties' arbitration agreement is contained in two documents: the written offer of employment (offer letter) that Reynolds signed, and CornerStone's mandatory arbitration policy (policy), which Reynolds acknowledged she had read and accepted.

The May 5, 2003 offer letter provides in relevant part, â€

Description	Defendant appeals from a court order denying its petition to compel arbitration of claims for disability discrimination and unfair business practices, among other causes of action, asserted by its former employee. Defendant contends the trial court erred in concluding that the arbitration agreement between the parties is unconscionably one-sided and thus unenforceable under Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 (Armendariz). Although the court considers the question to be exceptionally close, the ourt conclude that appellant is correct and shall reverse the decision.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.