��ʮ���²����

Under ORS 652.360(1), employers cannot create “special contract[s] or any other means” to circumvent statutes related to paying wages.

Plaintiff appealed the grant of a motion to compel arbitration for a matter regarding an employment agreement that Plaintiff signed to work for Defendant. Plaintiff assigned error to the finding that the agreement’s arbitration clause did not violate ORS 652.360(1). Plaintiff argued that the clauses’ provision that prohibited the arbitrator from “alter[ing], amend[ing], or modify[ing]” the terms of the agreement was unconscionable because it amounted to exempting Defendant from addressing issues related to wages. In response, Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s interpretation of the provision was incorrect because the arbitration clause also included a term that allowed arbitrators to resolve “any dispute, claim or controversy” related to the agreement. Under ORS 652.360(1), employers cannot create “special contract[s] or any other means” to circumvent statutes related to paying wages. The Court found that arbitration clause was valid, reasoning that the employment agreement included terms that allowed for modifying the agreement’s invalid or unenforceable terms so an arbitrator would be allowed to “alter, amend or modify” as necessary. Therefore, the lower courts correctly granted to the motion to compel arbitration. Affirmed.