Our Victory Against VinFast: Alameda Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration in Whistleblower Retaliation Lawsuit
- LOEAB
- 4 days ago
- 4 min read
VinFast, launches first Southern California dealership in San Diego - Source CBS8
Published: 10:15 PM PDT August 19, 2025
A Big Win For California Employees
In a significant win for California employees, the Alameda County Superior Court has denied VinFast Auto, LLC's motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful termination lawsuit brought by our client, a former store manager.
This ruling, issued only days ago by Judge Jenna Whitman, declares VinFast's mandatory arbitration agreement unenforceable due to both procedural and substantive unconscionability. As the attorneys representing the claimant, we're proud to have secured this outcome, which keeps the case in open court where employees can fully pursue their rights.
Case Background: A Whistleblower Stands Up
Our client was hired by VinFast—a Vietnamese electric vehicle manufacturer rapidly expanding in the U.S.—as a Store Manager in February 2023. Just months into his employment, he raised concerns about being forced to work seven days a week without rest, a clear violation of California labor laws. Instead of addressing the issue, VinFast allegedly retaliated by terminating him.
After an unsuccessful mediation, our client filed suit on February 24, 2025, alleging whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5(b) and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. VinFast, represented by the prominent management-side firm Jackson Lewis P.C., quickly moved to compel arbitration based on a clause buried in our client's employment offer documents.
The Court's Detailed Ruling: Unconscionability at Every Turn
In her 7-page order, Judge Whitman meticulously analyzed the arbitration agreement and found it riddled with flaws that rendered it unenforceable under California law.
Procedural Unconscionability: Oppression and Power Imbalance
The court determined the agreement exhibited a "moderate degree" of procedural unconscionability. It was presented as a pre-signed, non-negotiable "take-it-or-leave-it" condition of employment, emailed to Our client just one day after his hire date. Citing cases like Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Servs. (2000) and Jenkins v. Dermatology Mgmt., LLC (2024), Judge Whitman highlighted the inherent economic pressure on job applicants, especially against a nationwide employer like VinFast. While rejecting some of our client's arguments about surprise or confusion, the court emphasized the stark bargaining imbalance between an individual store manager applicant and a large corporation.
Substantive Unconscionability: One-Sided Terms Favoring the Employer
The agreement's substantive flaws were even more damning. The court identified multiple provisions that were "overly harsh or one-sided," including:
Lack of Mutuality
The agreement forced employees to arbitrate claims against VinFast and its undefined "related entities, employees, officers, owners, directors, agents or customers," but imposed no reciprocal obligation on those third parties. Relying on the recent Cook v. University of Southern California (2024), Judge Whitman noted this created unjustified benefits for VinFast without bilaterality, even though the scope was limited to employment-related claims.
Non-Mutual "Internal Efforts" Requirement
Employees—but not VinFast—must first attempt informal resolution through HR, giving the employer an unfair "first look" at claims (*Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp.* (2004)).
Unlawful Mediation Cost-Shifting
The agreement was silent on who pays mediator fees, potentially burdening employees—a violation of Armendariz standards requiring employers to cover unique arbitration costs.
Prohibition on Public Injunctive Relief
The ban on class, collective, or representative actions, including public injunctions under FEHA, was deemed unlawful (*Vaughn v. Tesla, Inc.* (2023)).
These terms, the court ruled, were not just unfair but "permeated" the agreement with unconscionability.
No Severance: The Agreement Is Beyond Repair
Despite a severability clause, Judge Whitman declined to excise the offending provisions. Citing Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024), she concluded that doing so would condone an "illegal scheme" and incentivize employers to draft one-sided agreements hoping courts would fix them. The agreement's central purpose—imposing arbitration as a forum favoring the employer—was tainted by illegality.
Why This Ruling Matters for California Workers
This decision is a powerful reminder that arbitration agreements aren't bulletproof, especially when they stack the deck against employees. In California, where pro-worker laws like Labor Code § 1102.5 protect whistleblowers from retaliation, courts are increasingly scrutinizing forced arbitration clauses. By keeping cases like this in public court, employees gain access to full discovery, jury trials, and uncapped damages—tools often limited in private arbitration.
For VinFast employees nationwide (the company operates multiple U.S. stores), this ruling could invalidate similar agreements, opening the door to court-based claims. It builds on a wave of 2024 precedents emphasizing fairness in employment contracts.
How We Can Help
At the Law Offices of Eric A. Boyajian, APC, we specialize in fighting for employees who've been wronged by powerful corporations. Whether it's whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination, wage theft, or challenging unfair arbitration agreements, our team has recovered millions for clients across California.
If you're facing a similar situation, don't let an employer silence you—contact us today for a free, confidential consultation.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
