Arbitration: validity of agreements to arbitrate.
This amendment reflects an important shift in how arbitration agreements are treated in California, potentially increasing judicial oversight over arbitration clauses and providing individuals with greater protections against mandatory arbitration in certain contexts. The incorporation of exclusions found in the FAA, such as those related to sexual harassment claims, suggests a strong legislative intent to protect individuals from being compelled to arbitrate disputes that involve significant legal rights. Consequently, this may reshape the landscape of arbitration agreements in California, marking a notable step towards consumer and employee rights.
Assembly Bill 2155, introduced by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, seeks to amend Section 1281 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, focusing on the validity of agreements to submit to arbitration. The bill clarifies that while existing law deems written arbitration agreements valid and enforceable, it aligns California's laws with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by making such agreements unenforceable if they are not permissible under the FAA. Specifically, it emphasizes the policy of ensuring that individuals can fully benefit from state law rights and procedures.
Debate around AB 2155 is likely to center on concerns regarding the balance between allowing arbitration to streamline dispute resolution processes and ensuring that individuals maintain access to the judicial system for serious grievances. Advocates for the bill argue that removing enforceability from certain arbitration agreements fosters fairness and prevents the misuse of arbitration in cases where individuals deserve full legal recourse. However, opponents may argue that this could increase litigation costs and burden the court system with disputes that could efficiently be resolved through arbitration.