Reference no: EM131675103

Question: The plaintiff in this case is Amir Peleg, a gay Jewish male of Israeli national origin. He worked at the Neiman Marcus store in Beverly Hills from December 28, 2005, to February 21, 2008. The store is owned by defendant Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (Neiman Marcus). Peleg worked in the fragrances department and performed his duties in an exemplary manner. On February 21, 2008, Peleg alleges he was discharged because of his national origin, religion, and sexual orientation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Neiman Marcus responded to the complaint with a motion to compel arbitration of the entire case. The company established that, at the time of hire, Peleg was given a Mandatory Arbitration Agreement (Agreement).

Peleg asserted that the Agreement was illusory and unenforceable in light of the following provision: "This Agreement to arbitrate shall survive the termination of the employer-employee relationship between the Company and any Covered Employee, and shall apply to any covered Claim whether it arises or is asserted during or after termination of the Covered Employee's employment with the Company or the expiration of any benefit plan. This Agreement can be amended, modified, or revoked in writing by the Company at anytime, but only upon thirty (30) days' advance notice to the Covered Employee of that amendment, modification, or revocation. However, any amendment, modification, or revocation will have no effect on any Claim that was fi led for arbitration prior to the effective date of such amendment, modification, or revocation." Do you agree that the arbitration agreement is illusory? Why or why not?