- Emergency Consultation Services
- Risk Management Services
- Who We Are
- Our People
- What We Do
- Why We Are Different
- What’s New
- Where We Are
By: Dave Daniels
On August 22, 2018, the California Senate voted to approve AB 3080, a bill prompted by the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment. Nominally, the bill is intended to combat the use of mandatory arbitration agreements and confidentiality clauses to prevent the public disclosure of workplace sexual harassment, a practice vigorously opposed by the #MeToo movement. As written, however, AB 3080 goes much further, imposing a ban on mandatory arbitration agreements for all claims of employment discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, as well as wage and hour claims.
The bill is currently on Governor Jerry Brown’s desk, awaiting his signature or veto. If signed, the new law would apply to any employment contracts “entered into, modified, or extended” on or after January 1, 2019, and would make several sweeping changes to the California employment law landscape:
Arbitration agreements are ubiquitous in employment contracts and provide for a low-cost, efficient means of resolving employment disputes.
AB 3080 would put a stop to this by adding Section 432.6 to the Labor Code, which would prohibit any person from requiring an applicant or employee, “as a condition of employment, continued employment, the receipt of any employment-related benefit, or as a condition of entering into a contractual agreement,” “to waive any right, forum, or procedure” for claimed violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) or the California Labor Code.
In other words, if AB 3080 is signed, it will be unlawful—indeed a misdemeanor—for an employer to require its employees to enter into mandatory arbitration agreements for any claims covered by FEHA (i.e., discrimination, retaliation, harassment) or the Labor Code (i.e., wage and hour claims).
While the bill only applies to mandatory arbitration agreements, Section 432.6(c) makes clear that employers will not be able to sidestep the new prohibitions by using opt-out clauses or otherwise requiring an employee to “take any affirmative action to preserve their rights.” Moreover, Section 432.6(b) prohibits employers from threatening, terminating, retaliating against, or discriminating against any employee or applicant who refuses to voluntarily sign an arbitration agreement.
Finally, because these new provisions appear in the Labor Code, violations could subject employers to civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, also known as PAGA.
Because AB 3080 prohibits any person from requiring an applicant or employee “to waive any right, forum or procedure” “as a condition of entering into a contractual agreement,” it arguably also eliminates or curtails employers’ ability to enter into settlement and general release agreements with their employees for FEHA and Labor Code claims. Given that the vast majority of these types of claims are settled, the full extent of AB 3080’s impact remains uncertain.
AB 3080 would also add Section 432.4 to the Labor Code, which would bar any person from prohibiting an applicant, employee, or independent contractor, “as a condition of employment, continued employment, the receipt of any employment-related benefit, or as a condition of entering into a contractual agreement,” from “disclosing to any person an instance of sexual harassment that the employee or independent contractor suffers, witnesses, or discovers in the workplace or in the performance of the contract.”
In short, employers will no longer be able to impose confidentiality obligations on their employees or independent contractors with respect to claims of sexual harassment.
Importantly, AB 3080 applies to any “person” who commits any of the above-noted violations, not just an employer. An earlier version of the bill was restricted to “an employer,” but was subsequently amended to replace “an employer” with “a person,” signaling the Legislature’s intent to impose individual liability for violations.
For the moment, as it awaits Governor Brown’s signature, AB 3080 is still not the law. In 2015, Governor Brown vetoed a similar bill, AB 465, which would have outlawed the use of mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. In his veto message, Governor Brown noted that there is significant debate about whether arbitration is less fair to employees, and explained that he was “not prepared to take the far-reaching step proposed by this bill.” Remember, however, that Governor Brown’s term ends in January 2019, and a re-introduced version of the bill could find a more sympathetic audience in his successor.
Even if Governor Brown signs the bill, there will be immediate legal challenges arguing that the bill is unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, which the United States Supreme Court has steadfastly enforced, most recently in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. AB 3080 is just the latest in a long history of California’s antagonism towards arbitration agreements, both in the employment context and beyond.
Notwithstanding the hurdles that AB 3080 faces, employers should now begin reviewing their arbitration agreements and practices in light of these potential changes. In particular, employers will want to think about best approaches to take during the period after the bill is signed and legal challenges work their way through the courts.
If you have any questions regarding the state of arbitration agreements in the Golden State, please feel free to contact Dave Daniels in our Sacramento office at 916-472-3301 or firstname.lastname@example.org.