Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc., v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County
In the Court of Appeal of the State of California
21 August 2008; B206740 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC359605)

Arbitral Limitation Period in Employment-related Claims Upheld

This case came about when Luis Turcio sued his former employer, Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc., the petitioner herein, alleging age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or FEHA, among others.

It appears that his employment agreement with Pearson contained mandatory arbitration clause for employment-related claims. It provides, among others, that unless submitted to arbitration within one year from the date the dispute arose or from the date plaintiff first became aware of facts giving rise to the dispute, the claim is considered waive.

When his claim was finally brought to arbitration by court order, the arbitrator found that Turcio had failed to timely submit his FEHA claim to arbitration. As a result, the arbitrator granted summary judgment in favor of Pearson.

The trial court, however, overturned the judgment, concluding that the one-year limitation period impermissibly infringed on plaintiff’s unwaivable statutory rights under the FEHA, thus, the arbitrator exceeded his power in enforcing the one-year limit.

The Court of Appeal of the State of California disagreed with the trial court. It held that the one-year period, based on the facts of the case, did not unreasonably restrict Turcio’s ability to vindicate his rights under the FEHA.

The Court says that “the record of the case leaves no doubt that the one-year arbitral limitation period gave Turcio adequate time to vindicate his FEHA claim in arbitration.”

The facts of the case disclosed that after his discharge on January 31, 2006, he obtained counsel within two weeks. He also obtained the right to sue and filed his lawsuit in the span of eight months. And by the time one-year had expired since his termination, the parties had engaged in pleading and discovery. Hence, it cannot be said that the one-year arbitral limitation period provided insufficient time for plaintiff to vindicate his FEHA rights in an arbitral form.