This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Jul. 19, 2017

Desiree A. Telep

See more on Desiree A. Telep

Telep Law APC

As employers are increasingly finding arbitration a more palatable means to handle employment disputes, Telep has fought against misleading practices that leave many workers unaware that their grievances may be brought to a private judge when they arise.

Last year, Telep won a significant appeals case, setting precedent for what constitutes a contractual obligation to arbitrate employment disputes.

When client January Esparza started working at Shore Hotel, she signed an employee handbook that contained an arbitration provision. A page in the handbook established that it was not a contract. Esparza later filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the hotel, and her former employer moved the case to arbitration, arguing that her signature established that she agreed to arbitrate the claim.

“Our position was that she never agreed to the arbitration provision or the terms within the employee manual,” she said. “We noted that those were not binding. [The handbook] was not a contract.”

The court of appeal agreed with Telep’s argument. Justice Audrey B. Collins, who penned the unanimous decision in Esparza v. Sand & Sea Inc. et. al. (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. Aug. 22, 2016), wrote, “the handbook, including the welcome letter and policy acknowledgment, was insufficient to meet defendants’ burden to demonstrate an agreement to arbitrate.”

The case ultimately settled for an undisclosed amount, but colleagues have told Telep that they have prevailed against several arbitration clauses under Esparza.

“It’s improving employee rights,” she said.

Now Telep is turning her attention to a wage and hour dispute. She is currently representing seven counselors at a rehabilitation facility who were improperly classified as salaried employees who didn’t receive proper overtime pay. Telep suspects that one of the defendants may declare bankruptcy, at which point Telep said she’ll pursue default. Clark v. Sure Haven Inc. et al., 30-2016-00881893 (Orange Super. Ct., filed Oct. 18, 2016).

“We aren’t afraid to litigate,” she said. “We’ll take it to the end.”

— Nicolas Sonnenburg

#329011

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com