Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

Supreme Court of California
6 P.3d 669 (2000)


Facts

Marybeth Armendariz and Dolores Olague-Rodgers (Armendariz/Rodgers) (plaintiffs) were hired by Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (Foundation) (defendant). Armendariz/Rodgers signed employment application forms that contained an arbitration clause which related to future wrongful termination claims. Subsequently, they signed separate employment arbitration agreements which contained the same arbitration clause. The arbitration clause provided that Armendariz/Rodgers were compelled to arbitrate any claim they might make for wrongful termination of employment and further provided that should they be successful on a claim that their damages were limited to loss of earnings for the period from discharge to the arbitration award. A year later Armendariz/Rodgers' employment was terminated. They claimed that during their year-long employment they were subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination by their supervisors and co-workers. Armendariz/Rodgers sued for violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) on the ground of wrongful termination. Foundation then sought to compel arbitration. The trial court ruled that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and that since its unfairness permeated the entire arbitration agreement, the entire agreement was invalid. Although the California Court of Appeals held that the damages provision was unconscionable, it also held that is was severable and permitted enforcement of the rest of the arbitration agreement. Foundation appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Mosk, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 170,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.