Cabrera v. Fox Television Stations

Background

Cabrera worked at Fox’s KTVU-TV station in Oakland, California. He filed a proposed class action in California state court alleging several California wage-and-hour claims. Fox removed the case to federal court based on complete preemption under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Cabrera did not challenge removal.

Fox moved under the Federal Arbitration Act and the grievance-and-arbitration provisions of two collective bargaining agreements to compel arbitration of Cabrera’s first claim, concerning meal periods, and third claim, concerning hourly and overtime wages. Cabrera argued that the claims were outside the agreements’ scope, that the arbitration provisions were unenforceable, and that Fox had waived arbitration.

The agreements covered Cabrera’s employment periods and contained identical provisions requiring questions or disputes involving interpretation or application of the agreements to be resolved through grievance procedures and then arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. The opinion states that Cabrera was a member of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO Local 45 during his employment.

Arbitrability of the Claims

The court held that both claims were subject to arbitration. For the unpaid-wages claim, the court applied California Labor Code sections 510 and 514. Section 514 excludes covered employees from section 510 when a qualifying collective bargaining agreement specifies wages, hours, working conditions, overtime premium rates, and a regular hourly rate meeting the statutory requirement. The court found that Fox established those conditions and that the unpaid-wages claim therefore arose solely under the collective bargaining agreements.

For the meal-period claim, the court applied California Labor Code section 512(d). That provision allows a collective bargaining agreement to apply instead of section 512 for broadcasting-industry employees when the agreement provides meal breaks and a monetary remedy for missed breaks. The court found that Fox established those conditions for Cabrera, so the meal-period claim also arose solely under the agreements and fell within their arbitration clauses.

Cabrera’s Objections

The court rejected Cabrera’s argument that the arbitration provisions did not bind him because he had not personally seen or accepted them. It concluded that a union may agree to arbitration in a collective bargaining agreement and bind bargaining-unit members to the agreement’s terms.

The court also rejected Cabrera’s unconscionability argument. It stated that the procedural unfairness concerns associated with some employment contracts do not apply in the same way to a bona fide collective bargaining agreement because collective bargaining presumes equal bargaining strength between the union and employer. The court further found that Cabrera’s argument about shortened limitation periods did not establish substantive unfairness because his claims were based solely on the collective bargaining agreements.

The court rejected Cabrera’s waiver argument as well. Fox sought arbitration within days after removing the case, and the court found that Fox had not engaged in substantial litigation while delaying its arbitration request. Fox’s separate motion to dismiss was terminated while the court decided arbitration first.

Individual Arbitration and Disposition

Fox asked that arbitration proceed only on an individual basis. Cabrera did not contest that request. Relying on the rule that courts may not infer consent to class arbitration without an affirmative contractual basis, the court directed that arbitration proceed individually.

The court ordered Cabrera’s first and third claims to arbitration and stayed the case under 9 U.S.C. § 3. The parties must file a joint status report every 90 days beginning January 26, 2026. The court did not decide whether Fox ultimately violated the California wage-and-hour laws.