Reproduced with permission from Daily Labor Report, 86 DLR A-9 (May 5, 2015).
Copyright 2015 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) www.bna.com
Bloomberg BNA, Daily Labor Report, May 5, 2015
By Lisa Nagel-Piazza
Cosmetology School Waived Right to Arbitrate Students’ Wage & Hour Claims, Court Rules Aproposed class of cosmetology students in California may proceed in court with their claims that they were required to provide salon services to paying customers without compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, despite having signed arbitration agreements at the time of enrollment, a federal judge ruled April 29 (Ford v. Yasuda, C.D. Cal., No. 5:13-cv-01961, 4/29/15).
Denying a motion to compel arbitration filed by the Amarillo College of Hairdressing Inc.—doing business as the Milan Institute of Cosmetology—and owner Gary Yasuda, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found that the school waived its right to arbitrate because it actively litigated the case for 17 months before filing the motion.
”Tellingly, Defendants requested the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint without mentioning the issue of arbitration, and instead chose to test their theories that Plaintiffs were not employees and that Yasuda was not individually liable,” Judge Philip S. Gutierrez wrote.
Milan’s delay was undue because it ”faced no barrier to moving to compel at the outset of this action,” Gutierrez said. Furthermore, because the court partially ruled in the students’ favor on Milan’s motion to dismiss, compelling arbitration would prejudice the students by requiring them to relitigate matters already decided by the court, Gutierrez added.
”The case challenges the business model used by cosmetology schools relying on unpaid student labor,” Bryan Schwartz, an attorney for the students told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail April 30. ”We will continue to prosecute our claims vigorously and challenge their arbitration agreements where they seek to use them unfairly.”
An attorney for Milan, Michael Hensley of AlvaradoSmith P.C. in Santa Ana, Calif., told Bloomberg BNA May 5 that the ruling was surprising. Milan’s actions should not have resulted in a waiver, Hensley said, and the school plans to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Students Provided Services Without Pay. Milan provides career training in cosmetology to enrolled students, as well as salon services to paying clients, the court said.
The students filed an initial complaint in October 2013 seeking minimum wage and overtime payments in accordance with federal and state law. They claimed that after they were charged to enroll in the school’s training programs, Milan required them to provide service to paying clients without compensating them for
In June 2014, Milan filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the students were not ”employees” within the meaning of the applicable laws. The court denied the motion in part and granted it in part with leave to amend.
Milan raised the issue of arbitration for the first time as an affirmative defense in a September 2014 answer to the students’ second amended complaint, the court said. The school filed the motion to compel arbitration six months later in March 2015.
Right to Arbitrate Constructively Waived. According to the court, the right to arbitrate is subject to constructive waiver in the Ninth Circuit if three conditions are met: the waiving party has knowledge of the right to compel arbitration, the party acts inconsistently with that right and prejudice results from the waiving party’s inconsistent acts.
In the present case, Milan knew of its right to compel arbitration because it drafted the agreement, the court said. Milan acted inconsistently with that right by its ”protracted silence regarding arbitration,” its delay in moving to compel arbitration, and its ”decision to take active part in 17 months of litigation,” the court said. Compelling arbitration would result in prejudice by requiring the students to relitigate the matters already decided by the court in its ruling on the motion to dismiss, the court said. Furthermore, a ”party’s ‘belated attempt to use arbitration as a method of forum shopping is prejudicial’ to its opponent,” the court said.
Contact the reporter on this story:
Lisa Nagele-Piazza in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
Contact the editor responsible for this story:
Susan J. McGolrick at email@example.com
Text of the order is available at:
When no other attorney would touch my case, Bryan took it on with zeal. Since then, the EEOC certified a class action and has ruled in our favor in every motion the other side has thrown at us. A five-star rating does not come close…
I was fortunate to have found Bryan Schwartz Law while searching for reputable and reliable law firms in the Oakland area that specialized in labor law, and I couldn’t be more pleased by the results they secured for my family on my father’s behalf! After…
Bryan's firm came highly recommended to deal with an employment discrimination and harassment case. Bryan and his staff were very professional, ethical, extremely organized and diligent. They are strong advocates who worked extremely hard to get me a very fair resolution to my case. I…
Bryan Schwartz is an attorney who gives good, sound advice and empowers you to believe in your convictions. I reached out to him because no other attorney wanted to assist me. Bryan has been my advocate for the last six years. He is compassionate, empathetic…
Bryan Schwartz is without a doubt a fantastic attorney. As tenacious as he is intelligent, I would absolutely recommend his services to anyone seeking justice. Not only is his legal expertise top notch, his interpersonal skills with his clients are superb as well. Working with…
Bryan and his team were highly recommended by a friend and another attorney. I reached out to Bryan when I was sick, hurting and afraid, not knowing what to expect or how to ask for help. Bryan offered to help, he and his team fought…
When I first met Bryan, and the team at Bryan Schwartz Law, I was blown away by how understanding, sympathetic, and outright dismayed they were to the unlawful situation my coworkers and I were (to say the least) uncomfortably having to endure and work through.…
Bryan Schwartz represented me successfully in mediating my age discrimination claim against a large employer....[T]here can be few lawyers with greater legal acumen or a more relentless drive to get an acceptable result for their clients. Bryan is all business and probably works too hard.…
I could never imagine having any other attorney on my side when I needed someone. This office is beyond professional and intelligent from the person answering the phone right to the attorneys. These attorneys will fight tooth and nail for you.
These guys were amazing. Just on the ball, knowledgeable and friendly as hell. I presented my case over the phone and I immediately got some preliminary feedback which was awesome. I was asked for more details which I provided via email the next day. Two…
Schedule an initial consultation to have Bryan Schwartz Law
evaluate your situation.
*Your submission of an intake request form does not guarantee that Bryan Schwartz Law will take your case or provide legal advice. You must be offered and sign a representation agreement with the firm before you will receive any legal advice.
How did we do?
Note: Your review may be shared publicly.