Carstens, Inc., Dba Carstens Health Industries, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. Jane McKenzie Individual
This text of 87 F.3d 1317 (Carstens, Inc., Dba Carstens Health Industries, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. Jane McKenzie Individual) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
87 F.3d 1317
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
CARSTENS, INC., dba Carstens Health Industries, Inc., an
Illinois corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jane McKENZIE, individual, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 95-15824.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 1996.*
Decided June 19, 1996.
Before: SNEED, PREGERSON and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
The arbitration clause did not cover McKenzie's claims. FEHA claims and intentional torts are neither "dispute[s] concerning interpretation of" nor "transaction[s] contemplated by" the contract. Nor is McKenzie's status as an employee or an independent contractor subject to arbitration because it isn't a question governed by the terms of the contract. Rather, it turns on a multi-factor, factual determination governed by California law. See Cal.Lab.Code § 3353; Cal.Code Regs. tit. 2, § 7286.5(b); S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Indus. Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341, 349 (1989).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
87 F.3d 1317, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 31374, 1996 WL 341949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carstens-inc-dba-carstens-health-industries-inc-an-ca9-1996.