Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 SEPTEMBER 2021

AB 51—Preempted, Or Not Preempted? That Remains The Question

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Contributor
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our...

View firm profile
Explore more from Seyfarth Shaw LLP

The law exclusively focuses on pre-arbitration agreement behavior and, by its terms, does not bar enforcement of arbitration agreements.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Seyfarth Synopsis: A divided Ninth Circuit panel has held that employer attempts to impose mandatory arbitration agreements on applicants or employees can be criminally and civilly penalized in California, and thus struck down an injunction stopping California officials from enforcing AB 51. According to the panel's decision, businesses are once more barred from requiring workers to enter into agreements to arbitrate FEHA and Labor Code claims. Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Bonta.

The Facts—AB 51

Signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 10, 2019, California Assembly Bill 51 subjects employers to criminal misdemeanor charges, as well as civil sanctions, for mandating arbitration agreements of certain claims in employment contracts. Under AB 51, which added Section 432.6 to the Labor Code, employees and job applicants cannot be contractually barred from suing employers in court for violations of the Fair Employment Housing Act or provisions of the Labor

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from