Insights
Publications

California’s New Ban on Mandatory Employment Arbitration: How We Got Here and What This Means

November 04, 2019 Articles

All employers should be aware that their use of mandatory employment arbitration agreements is prohibited in California effective January 1, 2020 under recently signed Assembly Bill No. 51 (AB 51).

Under current California law, employers may require employees to waive their right to initiate a civil action, and instead submit most disputes related to their employment in a private forum before a private arbitrator. However, under AB 51, employers are prohibited from mandating arbitration with their employees, or retaliating against employees for declining to sign an arbitration agreement.

The wrinkle here is that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly enforced mandatory employment arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Thus, AB 51 will likely be challenged in court as preempted by the FAA. Until resolution of that issue, however, employers who use arbitration agreements should review those forms to ensure compliance with AB 51’s requirements.

What Does This Law Mean?

As of January 1, 2020, AB 51 will ban employers from requiring any applicants or existing employees to agree to arbitration “as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit.” In other words, employers will no longer be permitted to mandate arbitration with their employees. Many employers currently utilize mandatory arbitration agreements as a part of their standard onboarding process. In the wake of AB 51, these standard forms will no longer be permissible.

Importantly, the law does not restrict employers from offering arbitration procedures to their employees as an option. If employees voluntarily agree to accept arbitration, they presumably will still be restricted from pursuing class or individual civil actions for their employment-related disputes. Thus, one option for employers is to revise their current arbitration procedures and forms to remove the mandatory component, making clear that the agreement is entirely optional. Of course, employers must exercise caution when doing so, carefully evaluating the risks and benefits for each specific workforce or individual employee. Many employers may choose to limit this practice to contracts with executive employees who are represented by counsel.

AB 51 is silent as to any mandatory arbitration agreements entered into prior to January 1, 2020. Thus, the arbitration protocol employers already have in place now—or might seek to implement prior to year end—seems protected. 

Why Now?

AB 51 was inspired by the #MeToo movement, which created negative publicity for mandatory arbitration agreements and their potential to silence employees who complained of workplace sexual harassment. AB 51 was proposed as a law focused on preventing sexual harassment and increasing employer accountability. The law aims to ensure that any employment contracts that could waive or limit individuals’ rights under the FEHA, are entered into voluntarily, not by coercion.

Although the California legislature has passed similar laws in the past, these initiatives were never enacted. Most recently, in 2018, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed an identical bill, reasoning that it “plainly violate[d] federal law.” With Governor Newsom’s election, however, proponents of a mandatory arbitration ban found a new ally. Newsom commented that the new laws he has signed into effect, including AB 51, aim to give employees “dignity, respect [and] safety . . . ”

Despite being targeted to address sexual harassment claims, AB 51 has much broader implications. AB 51’s prohibition on mandatory arbitration agreements will apply to all types of employment disputes—including other protected claims of discrimination or harassment under the FEHA or wage and hour protections under the Labor Code. This also suggests that mandatory class action waivers, which restrict employees from pursuing class-wide claims and have previously been upheld in California, are now banned.

Key Takeaways

Though AB 51 will undoubtedly face legal challenge over constitutionality or potential federal preemption, in addition to backlash from businesses, employers must be prepared for the change. This law directly impacts all employment contracts or agreements that mention arbitration. Employers should promptly evaluate their current standard forms, and plan to update any mandatory arbitration procedures by the New Year.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Use Caution When Laying off Employees Without a Return to Work Date

Employers who have laid off workers in recent weeks due to the shelter-in-place orders should be aware of little-known requirements regarding final paychecks.  Even if employees are being furloughed with the expectation of returning to...

Read More
News

Coronavirus: Can tech allay the dangers of the Bay Area office of the future?

Rebecca Stephens spoke to the San Francisco Chronicle about legal considerations that could potentially hinder a return to physical work as much as technological ones. Link to the article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Coronavirus-Can-tech-allay-the-dangers-of-the-15246378.php

Read More
Publication

Unlimited Vacation Policies Present Potential Pitfalls for California Employers

As unlimited vacation policies increase in popularity, California employers must be careful to avoid legal pitfalls in drafting and implementation. In the first California appellate decision to address unlimited vacation policies, the court held that...

Read More
Event

Employment Law Updates for Nonprofits in the New Normal (Webinar)

Join Rebecca Stephens and Jaya Bajaj in the discussion on Employment Law Updates for Nonprofits in the New Normal. Nonprofit organizations are subject to both state and federal employment laws and regulations. The past few...

Read More
Publication

Coronavirus and the Workplace: Key Legal Updates for Employers

With the spread of COVID-19 and the rapidly evolving federal, state, and local government response, it can be difficult for employers to keep up with their rights and obligations. This week, California’s Governor Gavin...

Read More
Publication

Coronavirus and the Workplace: Guidance for Employers Resuming Operations

As states and localities begin to relax shelter-in-place requirements and allow businesses to reopen, the coronavirus pandemic presents new challenges for employers. In addition to operational and logistical questions surrounding reopening, employers must navigate...

Read More
Publication

Coronavirus and the Workplace: Is Your Business Prepared?

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) implicates numerous legal obligations for employers, including leave, medical privacy, and discrimination. Employers should prepare to implement policies that strike a balance between ensuring safety and fostering...

Read More
Publication

Families First Coronavirus Response Act - Posting Requirement for Employers

The recently enacted Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) requires private employers with fewer than 500 employees to post a notice by April 1 summarizing the benefits available to employees under the FFCRA. For employers...

Read More
Publication

Coronavirus and Employee Privacy Laws: What Employers Should Know

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) presents challenging medical privacy issues for employers. Employers must observe their employees’ continued legal right to privacy—including under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), HIPAA, and/or relevant...

Read More
Publication

7 Tips for Creating a COVID-19 Essential Business Travel Policy

As states are relaxing COVID-19-related restrictions, employers should remain cautious about business travel. California’s public health orders still limit travel to an “urgent matter” or that which is “essential to your permitted work.” Given...

Read More