subscribe: Posts | Comments

Arbitration Agreement Meaning In Spanish


A group of car wash employees filed a group action against employers for wage and hourly violations. Employers have requested that arbitration be imposed in accordance with agreements signed by workers. In Delfingen US-Texas, L.P. v. Guadalupe Valenzuela, Guadalupe Valenzuela was hired for dolphins in El Paso, Texas. Following a business orientation made entirely in Spanish, Valenzuela signed a number of documents written in English, including a Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Policy and Agreement. The agreement contained a clause which stated that all disputes relating to Valenzuela`s employment must be subject to binding arbitration proceedings. In determining whether the agreement was materially unacceptable, the Tribunal examined the degree of reciprocity of the agreement. The court found that the agreement lacked reciprocity on the basis of: 1) the enforceable force clause allowed employers to take legal action, but limited the worker to arbitration; 2) the same enforceable force clause also contained the presumption that a breach of the confidentiality provision of the agreement would result in immediate and unaffordable harm to employers, but did not contain a parallel presumption in favour of workers; 3) the enforceable force clause allows employers to recover legal fees and fees, but has not given workers the same right; and 4) the arbitration clause required employees to discuss disputes with management before disclosing information to third parties, giving employers “free access” to issues they may face in arbitration proceedings. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the enforceable force clause of the agreement was a key element and that the new collaborators had not been covered. “The car wash facilities hid the enforceable force clause and the entire confidentiality agreement by not translating this part of the agreement into Spanish. Car-washing companies obviously knew that the complainants were asking for Spanish translations because they were providing translations.

The records do not indicate why the car washes did not translate the entire employment contract. In Esteban H. Carmona et al. v. Lincoln Millennium Car Wash Inc. et al. (Case Number B248143, State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight) sued current and former employees Esteban H. Carmona, Marcial H. Carmona, Pedro Cruz and Yoel Isail Matute Casco Lincoln Millennium Car Wash Inc. and Silver Wash Inc. Their employers tried to force arbitration.

Comments are closed.