California's resistance to the longstanding federal policy
favoring arbitration frequently results in public expressions of
frustration by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. In over five
years since the Supreme Court's broad directives in
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333
(2011), recent California decisions, including our recent
coverage of the California Supreme Court's holding in
Sandquist v. Lebo, Case No. S220812, 2016 WL
4045008 (Cal. July 28, 2016), suggest that the state's
stubbornness may be waning, at least for the time being. The
following summarizes key decisions that diverge from
California's traditional resistance to arbitration and which
every employer should have in their arsenal of tools.
