Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2015, Volume 28, Number 1
Content
- A Fond Vaarwel...
- A Path to Writeousness: What the Seven Deadly Sins Might Teach Us About Written Advocacy
- Be Prepared: Your Week in Legal London Jurisdiction is no bar - the English barrister is abroad
- Editor's Foreword Class Without Ostentation
- Employers Take Note: the U.S. Supreme Court Has Entered the Digital Age
- Forfeiture at the Pleading Stage: Ask Permission First, Don't Apologize Later
- "I Learned About Litigating from That" Adapt and Take Advantage of Opportunities
- Litigation Section Executive Committee Past Chairs
- Masthead
- McDermott On Demand: Pass the Scalpel, Please
- Past Editors-in-Chief
- Reclaiming Our Noble Profession: Civility in the Practice of Law
- Table of Contents
- The Disentitlement Doctrine: a Trap for Unwary Judgment Debtors in Civil Appeals
- The Fine Line Between Protected Demand Letters and Extortion
- The Litigator's Must-Know Lexicon of Idioms Used by Young Business Professionals
- Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame: Being a Trial Lawyer
- Adr Update: Dealing with Ab 2617
ADR Update: Dealing with AB 2617
By Paul Dubow
Paul Dubow
While the United States Supreme Court has recently broadened the scope of arbitration agreements, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011)___U.S.___, 131 S.Ct. 1740, the California Legislature has limited them, at least in one instance. During its 2014 session, the Legislature passed AB 2617, amending Civil Code sections 51.7, 52, and 52.1. These three statutes protect California citizens from violence or threat of violence because of political affiliation, position in a labor dispute, or sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition, and would not ordinarily be considered the subject of an arbitration agreement. But the Legislature apparently thought so, and it is now quite likely that we will see causes of action based on these statutes where the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement and one of them wants to avoid arbitration.
[Page 41]