Federal Court Gives New Year’s Eve Gift to California Employers… If Only Temporarily

06 January 2020 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Author(s): Mark J. Neuberger

On December 29, 2019, a federal district court in Sacramento issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the state of California from enforcing the law known as AB 51. 

Readers of this newsletter will recall that AB 51 was signed into law in October 2019.  It prohibits California employers from requiring applicants or employees to waive any right to or opt out of any legal forum or procedure established by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Labor Code. 

In plain English, the law bans employers from forcing employees to go to arbitration instead of suing in the courts or in administrate agencies.  AB 51 was to apply to contracts for employment entered into, modified or extended on or after January 1, 2020, which was to be the effective date of the new law.  AB 51 also provides that an employer who violates the act and continues to force arbitration commits a misdemeanor. 

Employer groups were up in arms over the prohibition of arbitration as a means to resolve employment disputes. To challenge the new law, a variety of business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the California Chamber of Commerce and the National Retail Federation filed suit in federal court seeking to prevent the law from going into effect. The essence of the employer groups’ argument was that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and recent U.S. Supreme Court cases had created a federal policy of using arbitration as a legitimate alternative to court litigation.  The business groups further argued that the FAA preempts or overrules any state law to the contrary.  On a preliminary basis, the federal court in Sacramento was persuaded by this argument and issued a temporary injunction. However, this is only a preliminary ruling.  This means that while the new law is on hold for now, the litigation will continue and the ultimate outcome of the case is uncertain. 

Employers in all states who currently make employees sign arbitration agreements or are considering doing so should keep a watchful eye to see how this case plays out in the courts. A final ruling holding the primacy of the FAA over state law will give broad-based endorsement to employer use of arbitration and will thwart other states from passing similar laws.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services