ARTICLE
29 October 2025

Beyond Arbitration Agreements: A California Court Interprets Dueling Employment Agreements

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
Specifically, the employee executed an arbitration agreement, which states that all cases brought by either an employee or employer would be arbitrated.
United States Employment and HR
Foley & Lardner are most popular:
  • within Government, Public Sector, Criminal Law and Insurance topic(s)
  • with readers working within the Healthcare industries

As we've previously written, enforcing employment arbitration agreements in California can be a complicated endeavor.

In a September 2025 decision, a California appellate court looked beyond the terms of an employee's arbitration agreement to determine whether said arbitration agreement was unconscionable (and thus unenforceable). In the case, Gurganus v. IGS Solutions LLC, the court ruled that an employee's arbitration agreement was unconscionable when read in connection with the same employee's confidentiality agreement.

Specifically, the employee executed an arbitration agreement, which states that all cases brought by either an employee or employer would be arbitrated. On the same day, however, the employee signed a confidentiality agreement, which stated: "[a]ny disputes under this Agreement may be brought in the state courts and the Federal courts for the county in which the Company's principal place of business is located, and the parties hereby consent to the personal jurisdiction and exclusive venue of these courts."

Because it is more likely an employer would bring suit in court to enforce the confidentiality agreement while an employee's potential claims would generally be brought in arbitration, the court concluded that the arbitration was not in fact mutual. Accordingly, the court held that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and thus unenforceable.

This holding has implications for any employer doing business in California hoping to enforce an arbitration agreement. When considering a motion to compel arbitration, courts may look at other agreements signed by an employee to determine the enforceability of an arbitration agreement. Employers should consult with legal counsel to review arbitration agreements and other employment agreements in the context of this case.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More