In determining whether the agreement was materially unacceptable, the Tribunal examined the degree of reciprocity of the agreement. The court found that the agreement lacked reciprocity on the basis of: 1) the enforceable force clause allowed employers to take legal action, but limited the worker to arbitration; 2) the same enforceable force clause also contained the presumption that a breach of the confidentiality provision of the agreement would result in immediate and unaffordable harm to employers, but did not contain a parallel presumption in favour of workers; 3) the enforceable force clause allows employers to recover legal fees and fees, but has not given workers the same right; and 4) the arbitration clause required employees to discuss disputes with management before disclosing information to third parties, giving employers “free access” to issues they may face in arbitration proceedings. The California Court of Appeals ruled that a dealer who translated a sales contract into Spanish but did not include the compromise clause in the translated agreement could not enforce the arbitration agreement. Ramos v. Westlake Services, LLC, A141353. Although it is a commercial transaction, it has a significant impact on employers who apply arbitration agreements with workers whose main language is not English. In that decision, the court stated that language barriers did not justify the unacceptable unless there was evidence that the complainants were subjected to a “high-pressure tactic” to induce the complainants to sign on the spot without checking the conditions. The Tribunal cited Ragone v. Atl.
Video at the Manhattan Ctr., 595 F.3d 115, 121 (2nd Cir. 2010) in which the court found that “the New York courts have repeatedly ruled that even the fact that a future collaborator has an imperfect understanding of the English language does not exempt the employee from making reasonable efforts to have him explain the document.” When issuing the defendant`s request to force arbitration, the court took into account the fact that there was no evidence that the applicants had already taken steps to have them explain the arbitration agreement or that they had asked the defendant`s Chinese-speaking secretary to translate the document into English or explain to them. Similarly, the court argued that the complainants never tried to negotiate the terms of the arbitration agreement, nor did they ever ask for a translated version of the agreement. Furthermore, the applicants did not argue that the applicant parties had used high-pressure tactics to induce the applicants to sign the documents. In addition, the court stated that FLSA and federal jurisprudence support the applicability of arbitration agreements in the context of labour law. Plaintiff Alfredo Ramos purchased a used car from Pena`s Motors, an agent for Westlake Services, LLC. Negotiations between Ramos and Pena`s Motors representatives on the automobile were conducted mainly in Spanish, Ramos` native language.