Guillermo M. Tello is one of Clark Hill’s rising leaders. Since his arrival at the ÿrm in the summer of 2019, Tello has been instrumental in the ÿrm’s growth of its California labor and employment practice. His experience and success representing clients in high-stakes employment litigation has made him a true and trusted “go-to” employment litigator for the most difficult cases. His litigation experience includes obtaining full defense jury trial verdicts and arbitration awards, and successfully resolving complex class actions and PAGA representative actions.
Tello also counsels’ clients on day-to-day California employment law issues, provides training and legal support to human resources, and assists clients in implementing new policies and procedures including alternative workweek schedules.
To provide the best possible day-to-day counsel services, Tello stays current on all California employment law developments. For instance, he has been closely tracking California’s ongoing efforts to restrict, limit, or discourage employers from seeking enforcement of arbitration agreements.
California’s latest effort to discourage employers from seeking enforcement of arbitration agreements is in the passing of Senate Bill No. 365. SB-365 amends California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 1294 to eliminate employers’ right to an automatic stay of the trial court proceedings upon the filing of an appeal from an order denying a petition to compel arbitration.
By eliminating the right to an automatic stay, a right which existed prior to SB-365, employers who are denied the right to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of any arbitration agreement signed by their employees, may be forced to continue to litigate the employee’s claims in state court even after ÿling an appeal, which will undoubtedly signiÿcantly increase the cost of litigation for employers.
While SB-365 is purportedly limited to only those agreements that are not subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the application of SB-365 may still implicate agreements that should be subject to the FAA. For example, if a trial court denies a petition to compel arbitration, in part, on the basis that the agreement is not governed by the FAA and the employer appeals the trial court’s ruling, including on the grounds that the agreement is indeed governed by the FAA, will California courts rely on SB-365 to deny a stay of the trial court proceedings pending the appeal? If yes, and assuming the agreement is found to be subject to FAA on appeal, would the denial of stay not violate the employers’ right to a stay of the trial court proceedings as the US Supreme Court held was required in Coinbase, Inc v. Bielski, 599 US 736 (2023).
Whether a business is facing threatened or asserted employment claims, or simply seeks advice on day-to-day management of its personnel, Tello and the rest of Clark Hill’s labor and employment team are ready to assist.
Guillermo M. Tello, member, Clark Hill, LLP can be reached at (213) 417-5149 or [email protected]. Clark Hill, LLP is honored to be a Gold Sponsor of the Corporate Counsel Awards. Learn more at clarkhill.com.
