Samsung arbitration contracts one-sided, judge rules

A Santa Clara County judge denied Samsung Research America Inc.’s bid to compel arbitration in a discrimination and wrongful termination and retaliation case, finding the agreements that the plaintiff was forced to sign to work for the company were unconscionably one-sided and thus unenforceable.

The judge disagreed with Samsung’s efforts to reserve the right to file employer-side claims in court while limiting Mo to arbitration on terms favorable to Samsung.

One key provision Judge Evette D. Pennypacker highlighted in her Friday order was that the agreement allows Samsung to obtain injunctive relief against plaintiff Andrew Mo for confidentiality over his own inventions without needing to prove actual damages or obtain third party discovery. On the other hand, if Mo wanted relief in the case that Samsung was misusing his inventions, he would have to arbitrate that claim.

“We are grateful that the court took a careful look at the employment terms Samsung Research America forced on workers like Andrew Mo which attempt to block employees from accessing this country’s judicial system,” Mo’s attorney, Stephen N. Ilg of ILG Legal Office PC said in an email Monday. “The court’s tentative ruling and its final decision correctly identified that Samsung’s nonnegotiable employment contracts unfairly restrict the ability of a worker to address unfairness in the workplace. This ruling shows that courts will not simply rubber stamp a motion to force a lawsuit out of our judicial system.”

In their motion to compel arbitration, Samsung’s attorneys — Janelle J. Sahouria and Kayla Lucia from Jackson Lewis PC — argued that Mo contractually agreed to arbitrate disputes and his claims fall under the scope of the agreements he signed. They also tried to petition Pennypacker to sever some sections of the arbitration agreements to render them enforceable but she denied that request.

Samsung and its attorneys did not respond to requests for comment about the ruling.

“The employment contracts Samsung forced on Mr. Mo attempted to rewrite the legal rules for certain claims it may bring against an employee like Mr. Mo,” Ilg said.

Mo is also represented by Sydney Wilberton and Nicolas Jupillat of Ilg Legal Office. Andrew Mo v. Samsung Research America Inc., 22CV408165, (Santa Clara Sup. Ct., filed Dec. 2, 2022).

According to his complaint, Mo had left Google LLC to join Samsung as a senior director and principal engineer. He had asked Samsung to remove the arbitration clauses from his contracts before he started but was told they were nonnegotiable if he wanted to work for Samsung.

During his time there, Mo claimed he learned of supposed racial discrimination by Samsung Research America’s vice president, who he claimed said people with “dark skin” should not be in the area when the vice chairman of the parent company was on site for a product showcase.

Mo said he reported the incident to human resources and then directly to the company’s chief executive officer, and around a month later, he was terminated with the given reason of role elimination. Later that year he filed suit.