The State of California has been temporarily enjoined from enforcing Assembly Bill 51’s prohibition on mandatory employment arbitration agreements. Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al. v. Becerra, et al., No. 2:19-cv-2456 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2019). Enforcement of Assembly Bill 51 is enjoined until the court can decide the pending motion for a preliminary injunction, which is set for a hearing on January 10, 2020.The court ruled that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations have shown that there are serious questions regarding whether California’s law is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA); that if enforced, California’s law could cause disruption to employment contracts, particularly in light of the potential for the imposition of criminal penalties on employers; and that the State of California will not be harmed by a temporary injunction on the enforcement of Assembly Bill 51.

Under Assembly Bill 51, employers are prohibited from requiring employees to sign new mandatory arbitration agreements concerning disputes arising under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or California Labor Code. AB 51 applies only to contracts executed, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2020. Recently enacted Labor Code section 432.6 bars mandatory employment arbitration agreements starting January 1, 2020. (For more on AB 51, see our article, New California Law Attacks Mandatory Arbitration Again … But Is It More Bark Than Bite?)

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations filed suit in federal court against the State of California to have Assembly Bill 51 declared preempted by the FAA. (See our article, California Bar on Mandatory Arbitration Agreements in Employment Challenged, Injunction Sought.) The lawsuit also seeks a declaration that Assembly Bill 51’s express FAA carve out provision, which protects mandatory employment arbitration agreements otherwise enforceable under the FAA, applies to both enforcement and formation of arbitration agreements.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about this case.

Tags: AB 51, FEHA
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Scott P. Jang Scott P. Jang

Scott P. Jang is a principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a co-leader of the firm’s Class Actions and Complex Litigation practice group and Technology industry group. He represents management in all areas of employment law, with…

Scott P. Jang is a principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a co-leader of the firm’s Class Actions and Complex Litigation practice group and Technology industry group. He represents management in all areas of employment law, with particular focus on class actions and complex litigation. Scott is a member of the firm’s California Class and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Action group, as well as a member of the California Advice and Counsel resource group.

Scott’s litigation experience covers the full spectrum of employment law. He has experience defending employers against claims for alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair competition. He also has experience defending employers against various wage and hour claims, including claims for alleged overtime, meal and rest breaks, and business expense reimbursement. Scott’s trial practice includes having served as second chair in a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which a national beverage manufacturer fully prevailed on all claims for alleged misclassification. He has also served as first chair in several arbitrations for a national retailer for alleged wage and hour violations.

Read more about Scott P. Jang
Show more Show less
Related Posts
The Civil Rights Department’s Upcoming Regulation Updates on Automated Decision Making
October 24, 2024
Pending Legislation Would Expand Reasonable Accommodations to Employees and Applicants for “Family Responsibilities”
March 22, 2022
Who Are Veterans under California’s FEHA?
November 11, 2021