Wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases arise in a wide range of contexts such as death or injury as a result of an automobile or motorcycle accident; the use of a defective or malfunctioning product, drug or medication; an airplane accident; toxic exposure; an animal attack; or a hazardous condition of property.
Representing employees fired or retaliated against for whistle-blowing with regard to corporate wrongdoing; Refusing to engage in illegal or unethical activities; complaining about wage and overtime practices; Complaining about discrimination or harassment; Complaining about accounting irregularities; Taking necessary medical leave or participating in jury duty; Engaging in lawful conduct outside the workplace or filing a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Practice Areas   Our Attorneys   News & Events   Contact Us   Home  
Representing victims of sexual harassment, age, race, religious or disability discrimination.

Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful

If you are a victim of sexual harassment, age discrimination, racial discrimination, or disability discrimination call Helmer Friedman LLP for a free consultation.

Wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases arise in a wide range of contexts such as death or injury as a result of an automobile or motorcycle accident; the use of a defective or malfunctioning product, drug or medication; an airplane accident; toxic exposure; an animal attack; or a hazardous condition of property.

PRACTICE AREAS

 

Workplace Violations

Wrongful Termination
Retaliation
Breach of Employment Contract
Overtime, Bonus And Other Wage
And Hour Violations
Tips And Gratuities
Tip Pooling
Medical Or Family Leave
Other Illegal Employment Practices
Harassment

Discrimination

Age Discrimination
Disability Discrimination
Race Discrimination
National Origin Discrimination
     National Origin Compliance Manual
Sexual Favoritism Discrimination

Personal Injury and
Wrongful Death

Malpractice & Abuse

Sports Entertainment Law

Other Legal and
Employment Issues

DO I HAVE A CASE? CLICK HERE TO FILL OUT FORM

Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae's Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful

September 3, 2014 - Andrea K. Loveless, an attorney with the plaintiff employment law firm Helmer-Friedman LLP, announced today that the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, has held that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable. In this lawsuit, Los Angeles-based Helmer • Friedman LLP and Washington, D.C-based co-counsel Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC, represent Cecelia Carter with respect to her claims of wrongful termination, race discrimination and retaliation. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. 30-2013-00647896-CU-WT-CJC (Orange County Sup. Ct., filed May 3, 2013). According to the Complaint, Ms. Carter reported her concern that several Fannie Mae REO Foreclosure Specialists in the Irvine, California office had allegedly solicited illegal kickbacks from brokers in exchange for assigning Fannie Mae REO listings to those brokers. Shortly after, Fannie Mae initiated an investigation into Ms. Carter's performance and then, on May 4, 2011, terminated her without explanation. On March 26, 2013, a federal grand jury charged Armando Granillo, one of the REO Foreclosure Specialists from the Irvine office, with three counts of "honest services" wire fraud for allegedly soliciting kickbacks from a real estate broker in Tucson, Arizona, in exchange for providing him with foreclosed properties to sell on behalf of Fannie Mae. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Granillo was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for his role in the kickback scheme. For more information about Mr. Granillo’s conviction, see http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-fannie-kickbacks-sentencing-20140804-story.html

After Ms. Carter filed her Complaint, Fannie Mae moved to compel arbitration. The Superior Court denied Fannie Mae’s motion, holding that defendant failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that Ms. Carter and Fannie Mae entered into an arbitration agreement. The Superior Court found that, although the Offer Letter referenced the arbitration policy, Fannie Mae did not include the arbitration agreement with its Offer Letter and did not tell her where to find it; Fannie Mae then revoked the Offer letter; and Fannie Mae’s subsequent offer of employment did not contain or reference an arbitration provision. Fannie Mae appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision on other grounds, holding that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it was inherently one-sided in that it exempted the types of claims likely to be filed by Fannie Mae, but included the types of claims likely to be filed by the employee. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. G049112, 2014 WL 4212622 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Aug. 26, 2014). The arbitration agreement covered "all" claims an employee might make involving a legally protected right relating directly or indirectly to the employee’s employment, but exempted "any claim made in connection with workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment compensation benefits, or under any of Fannie Mae’s employee welfare benefits, ERISA, or pension plans, or to any claim of unfair competition, disclosure of trade secrets, or breach of trust or fiduciary duty." During oral argument, Fannie Mae’s counsel emphasized the aspects of the agreement it claimed were beneficial to the employee. However, the Court of Appeal held that "[i]t makes no difference that, arguably, the dispute resolution policy isn’t entirely one-sided" and found that the allegedly positive aspects of the agreement do not "save the agreement as a whole when it contains other provisions that have been clearly held to be unconscionable in the case law."

"We are very pleased that the Court of Appeal rejected Fannie Mae’s attempt to force Ms. Carter into arbitration," commented Ms. Loveless. “For years, employers have attempted to destroy one of our Country’s greatest institution – the jury trial – by forcing employees and consumers into secret tribunals that favor large corporations over individuals. The founders of our Country enshrined the right to a jury trial in our Constitution and corporations should not be allowed to take that right away." The Court of Appeal’s decision may also significantly affect the ability of other Fannie Mae employees to bring their claims in court, rather than be forced into arbitration.

For a PDF copy of the Court of Appeal decision, click here.

For additional information or to report unlawful conduct on the part of Fannie Mae, contact:

Andrew H. Friedman
Andrea K. Loveless

DO I HAVE A CASE? CLICK HERE TO FILL OUT FORM

 

If you are a victim of sexual harassment, age discrimination, racial discrimination, or disability discrimination call Helmer Friedman LLP for a free consultation.

 

  Click for Legal Disclaimer  

* Age Discrimination * Racial Discrimination * National Origin Discrimination * Religious Discrimination * Disability Discrimination * Sexual Harassment * Sexual Favoritism * Tips And Gratuities * Wrongful Death * Personal Injury * Accidents * Defective and Unsafe Products * Medical Malpractice * Elder Abuse * Nursing Home Neglect * Nursing Home Abuse * Entertainment Law Workplace Violations * Wrongful Termination * Contract & Severance * Civil Rights * Class ActionsDefamation *Libel * Slander * Whistle-Blower * Retaliation * Sports Entertainment Law

 

Website Management, Repairs, Marketing: Internet Market Consulting