Seyfarth Synopsis. As of January 1, 2020, AB 51 makes it unlawful for employers to impose arbitration agreements on employees as a condition of employment, even if employees are permitted to opt out. But will AB 51 withstand a legal challenge saying that AB 51 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act? While courts ponder that question, California employers must
Continue Reading AB 51 Challenge: How Should California Employers Ring In The New Year?
Federal Arbitration Act
Legislative Update: Governor Newsom Pens Halloween Terrors for California Employers
Seyfarth Synopsis: Governor Newsom has approved some of the bills most feared by employers, including bills to ban employment arbitration, extend FEHA administrative deadlines, codify the Dynamex ABC test, and create San Francisco-style lactation-accommodation requirements. Governor Newsom also vetoed a few bills that we might expect to be re-introduced in the same or similar form during 2020.
Governor Newsom acted…
Continue Reading Legislative Update: Governor Newsom Pens Halloween Terrors for California Employers
Zombie Apocalypse? Another (Unconstitutional?) California Assault on Arbitration
Seyfarth Synopsis. On Thursday, September 5, 2019, the Legislature passed AB 51. This bill would ban mandatory arbitration agreements with respect to claims under the Labor Code and the Fair Employment and Housing Act while simultaneously disclaiming any intent to invalidate any agreement protected by the Federal Arbitration Act. Is this bill California’s latest clever—but predictably unsuccessful—effort to discriminate against …
Continue Reading Zombie Apocalypse? Another (Unconstitutional?) California Assault on Arbitration
2019 Employment Law: Cases Pending in the California Supreme Court
Seyfarth Synopsis: Employment-related cases pending before the California Supreme Court concern various questions that sometimes seem technical, but the answers they elicit will have big consequences. Questions raised by the current crop of cases include standing to sue, the availability of certain claims and remedies, federal preemption of California laws, what counts as compensable time, and—that perennial favorite—how to interpret …
Continue Reading 2019 Employment Law: Cases Pending in the California Supreme Court
Governor Brown Vetoes Legislative Attempt to Criminalize Mandatory Arbitration
Seyfarth Synopsis: In vetoing the California Legislature’s attempt to criminalize arbitration agreements (AB 3080), Governor Brown displayed common sense and the legal learning provided by recent U.S. Supreme Court authority.
Haven’t high courts already upheld mandatory arbitration agreements?
Yes, they have. The California and U.S. Supreme Courts have repeatedly ruled that employers may require employees to enter valid arbitration agreements…
Continue Reading Governor Brown Vetoes Legislative Attempt to Criminalize Mandatory Arbitration
Is California’s Latest Assault on Arbitration Constitutional?
Seyfarth Synopsis. Pending California legislation would make a mandatory arbitration agreement an unlawful practice under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and a crime. How could that be consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act?
Under current law, California businesses can insist that employees and contractors enter valid agreements to resolve disputes in front of a neutral arbitrator instead of a…
Continue Reading Is California’s Latest Assault on Arbitration Constitutional?
2018 California Legislative Update: What Survived the House of Origin Deadline?
Seyfarth Synopsis: Several bills of concern to California employers failed to receive the house of origin blessing and passage by the June 1 deadline, including this year’s attempts at PAGA reform, criminal history inquiries, and medical marijuana accommodations, while a boatload of others, most notably sexual harassment-related bills, sail on. The measures being passed to their opposite house for consideration …
Continue Reading 2018 California Legislative Update: What Survived the House of Origin Deadline?
Governor’s Pen Sends Anti-Employment Arbitration Bill to the Grave
On October 11—his very last day to sign or veto bills—Governor Brown vetoed the much-feared Assembly Bill 465. AB 465 would have banned mandatory agreements to arbitrate Labor Code claims as a condition of employment. At least for now, employers with such arbitration programs can breathe a sigh of relief. We previously reported about AB 465 in more detail here…
Continue Reading Governor’s Pen Sends Anti-Employment Arbitration Bill to the Grave
California Moves Toward Ban On Mandatory Arbitration of Labor Claims
On August 31, the California Legislature passed AB 465, aiming to “ensure that a contract to waive any of the rights, penalties, remedies, forums, or procedures under the Labor Code”—such as an arbitration agreement—is “a matter of voluntary consent.” This bill, now before Governor Brown for his approval, raises two big questions: (1) will the Governor sign the bill, and,…
Continue Reading California Moves Toward Ban On Mandatory Arbitration of Labor Claims
California Law On Class Action Waivers In Arbitration Agreements: As Clear As Mud
Navigating the shoals of California law on arbitration agreements has been exceedingly difficult. The California Supreme Court has maintained a long tradition of general antipathy to mandatory arbitration, and has been particularly hostile to arbitration agreements that limit a plaintiff’s ability to pursue a class action. For example, Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th …
Continue Reading California Law On Class Action Waivers In Arbitration Agreements: As Clear As Mud