Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

McGill: An Arbitration Agreement Cannot Waive Public Injunctive Relief in Every Forum

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 17, 2026

McGill v. Citibank arose from a consumer arbitration agreement, but its rule affects employment agreements whenever a claimant seeks an injunction whose principal purpose is to prohibit conduct threatening future injury to the public.

The agreement barred the remedy everywhere

The provision did more than select arbitration. It purported to prevent the claimant from obtaining public injunctive relief in arbitration or court, even under statutes authorizing that prospective remedy.

California law protects public injunctive relief

Civil Code section 3513 permits waiver of rights affecting only private interests but not laws established for a public reason. The Court held that a wholesale prospective waiver of public injunctive relief violates that principle.

The FAA did not require enforcement of the waiver

The Court distinguished a rule hostile to arbitration from a generally applicable rule against eliminating a substantive statutory remedy in every forum. The decision did not hold that all public-injunction claims must be litigated in court.

Classify the requested injunction before applying McGill

A public injunction principally benefits the general public by stopping future unlawful conduct; private relief principally resolves harm to the claimant. The pleading, requested order, and practical beneficiaries determine which category applies.

Key takeaways

• Separate forum selection from elimination of a remedy.
• Define the prospective conduct the injunction would prohibit.
• Explain who would receive the primary benefit of the requested order.
• Review later federal and California decisions applying the McGill rule.