Brown, et al. v. MHN Government Services, Inc., et al. Opinion – August 15, 2013

Validity of Arbitration Agreements

This case involved an agreement, labeled “Provider Services Task Order Agreement,” between two mental health professionals and their employer. The agreement contained, among other things, a “Mandatory Arbitration” provision and was governed by California law. After several years of working for MHN Government Services, Inc. (“MHN”), plaintiffs filed a complaint in Pierce County Superior Court alleging state law wage claims on behalf of themselves and a proposed class. In response, MHN filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Plaintiffs, in response, moved to quash the demand for arbitration, claiming that that the following five provisions were unconscionable (1) the forum selection clause; (2) the contractual statute of limitations; (3) the arbitrator selection provision; (4) the fee-shifting provision; and (5) the punitive damages exclusion. The superior court denied the motion to compel arbitration. MHN appealed and the case was ultimately transferred to the Supreme Court, pursuant to RCW 2.06.030.Continue Reading Brown, et al. v. MHN Government Services, Inc., et al., No. 87953-2 (Aug. 15, 2013) (en banc)