Matern Law Group, PC - Los Angeles 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 | Phone: (855) 913-1134

Matern Law Group, PC - Los Angeles (Downtown) US Bank Tower, 633 West Fifth StreetSuite 2818B
Los Angeles, CA 90071 | Phone: (855) 205-8186

Matern Law Group, PC - Oakland 1330 Broadway, Suite 428
Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone: (855) 893-0718

Matern Law Group, PC - Sacramento Capitol Mall, 500 Capitol MallSuite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814 | Phone: (855) 206-0281

Matern Law Group, PC - San Diego Emerald Plaza, 402 West Broadway, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101 | Phone: (855) 435-4141

Matern Law Group, PC - San Francisco One Market Plaza Spear Tower, Suite 3676
San Francisco, CA 94105 | Phone: (855) 512-3291

Taco Bell Employee Wins Artbitration Important Victory For Working People

November 9, 2016

Taco Bell Logo
*All product and company names are trademarks™ or registered® trademarks of their respective holders. Use of them does not imply any affiliation with or endorsement by them.

In an important victory for workers’ rights, the California Court of Appeals refused to order a fast-food worker to arbitrate his wage and hour claims against a Taco Bell franchisee, Century Fast Foods. Attorneys from Matern Law Group, PC argued that an arbitration agreement, like any agreement, requires the mutual assent of the parties, and that Plaintiff Jesus Mendoza never agreed to arbitrate any claims against Century Fast Foods when he filled out a job application bearing the name Taco Bell Corporation. Accordingly, Mendoza’s attorneys claimed that he deserves to have his case heard by a jury of his peers as opposed to by a judge for hire in a confidential arbitration proceeding. The California Court of Appeals agreed, paving the way for Mr. Mendoza’s class action to proceed in the Superior Court.

In upholding the decision of the Honorable Elihu M. Berle, the Court of Appeals rejected Century’s claims that it was a “related company” as that terms was used in the agreement. The Court found that Century failed to prove that Plaintiff Mendoza knew that the ambiguous phrase, “related companies,” meant that he was agreeing to arbitrate his claims with Century at the time he filled out his application.

According to Mendoza’s attorney, Mathew J. Matern, “this decision marks an important victory for working people, employees who have been forced to pursue their claims through arbitration without ever knowing what rights they were giving up. Study after study have confirmed what practitioners have known for years—arbitration unfairly favors employers, and deprives working people of their rights. We are very pleased by this decision and look forward to fighting on behalf of Mr. Mendoza and the class of workers he seeks to represent.”

A copy of this decision can be found at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B267158.PDF [PDF]

Related posts

covid-19 employment litigation

The Next COVID-19 Employment Litigation Hotbeds

November 14, 2020

Soon, the lawsuits that have made up the bulk of coronavirus-related litigation thus far – primarily concerning safety and wrongful… Read More The Next COVID-19 Employment Litigation Hotbeds

Read more
Employment Law Legislative Roundup
Employee Rights

Employment Law – Legislative Roundup

October 4, 2020

Drama and suspense ran high as lawmakers worked through the weekend until midnight last month to meet the August 31st… Read More Employment Law – Legislative Roundup

Read more

Need to chat?