California's Ban on Mandatory Arbitration in Employment Overturned by Ninth Circuit Court

Table of Contents

1. Summary

2. Introduction to the Controversial Assembly Bill 51

3. The FAA’s Preemption of AB 51

4. Background: The Genesis of AB 51

5. The Legal Challenge and Preliminary Injunction

6. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision: A Detailed Examination

7. Implications for California Employers and Employees

8. Understanding the Majority’s Decision

9. Rejection of California’s Argument Against FAA Application

10. Contract Law Principles in Arbitration Agreements

11. Judge Lucero’s Dissenting Opinion

12. Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

13. Navigating the Complex Landscape of Employment Arbitration

14. Conclusion

Summary

In this article, the author gives a comprehensive analysis of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in California Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51). Besides, this article further discussed scrutiny of the decision by the court reversing a California 2020’s law purposed to prohibit employers from requiring arbitration pacts in return for employment. Further analysis was made concerning the majority decision by Judge Sandra Ikuta, the dismissal of the California arguments on the unenforceability of FAA, and dissenting decision by the Judge Carlos Lucero. Practical implications for employers, especially those employing “transportation workers,” and the complex legal landscape surrounding employment arbitration were also highlighted. The recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on California’s AB 51 has been a significant topic of discussion among California employer class action defense attorneys, as it greatly impacts the enforceability of arbitration agreements in employment contracts.

Introduction to the Controversial Assembly Bill 51

The controversial 2020 California law was struck down on February 15, 2023, after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals passed a landmark decision. This act that was under the title Assembly Bill (AB) 51 was supposed to prohibit the employers from demanding that the employees sign arbitration agreement as a condition of employment.

The decision of the 2-1 panel to the case Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Bonta provided a solution to the state of ambiguity that surrounded the enforceability of AB 51. This decision affirmed the dominance of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) against state legislation and more so those that prejudiced the incorporation of arbitration agreements. In terms of California employers, this ruling has been considered to represent a major triumph confirming their entitlement to compel employees and job seekers to enter into obligatory arbitration agreements provided that such agreements meet the provisions set forth in the FAA.

The FAA’s Preemption of AB 51

The FAA’s preemption of AB 51 was the crux in the chamber of commerce v Bonta case. The Ninth Circuit Court then ruled that AB 51 was at odds with the FAA on the manner in which it openly discriminated against arbitration agreements. The FAA as a federal statute has been squarely construed to be enshrining and encouraging arbitration as a legitimate and enforceable means of resolving disputes. It, therefore, followed that the provisions of AB 51 that sought to disincentivize or even to bar the formation of arbitration agreements within the employment discussions were incompatible with the goals of the FAA. Therefore, this decision underscores the fact that while enforcing state law, grievances cannot in any way render the FAA ineffective, especially when it comes to cases involving arbitration agreements.

Background: The Genesis of AB 51

For more clear implications of this decision, it is essential to consider AB 51’s background. Enacted by the state legislature of California in October 2019 and signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, AB 51 aimed at prohibiting mandatory employment arbitration. The California Labor Code was then altered after passing the law, including Section 432.6 where employers could no longer compel their employees and applicants to give up their rights for filing lawful complaints or actions for labor claims and discrimination respectively. This is because mandatory arbitration provisions premised as an aspect of being hired were all sided towards ensuring that the rights of employees were not trampled upon. In addition, AB 51 made it possible for employers to face heavy penalties, criminal charges, and civil liabilities if they fought back at the employees who refused to take part in those waiver activities. This statute was a decisive move by California towards the protection of employee rights, while the demands of employers regarding arbitration were becoming more and more common.

The Legal Challenge and Preliminary Injunction

AB 51 was challenged in the courts the moment the law was implemented. AB 51 was litigated on December 9, 2019, by a group of trade associations and business organizations seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop implementation. The plaintiffs claimed that the law was pre-empted by FAA and was a violation of employers’ rights. Upon the fact that AB 51 was indeed preempted by the FAA, the district court initially provided a preliminary injunction to suspend the enforcement work of the document. This initial ruling laid the path for the following appellate court conclusion.

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision: A Detailed Examination

Under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling by which it blocked AB 51, there was a narrow application of the FAA’s preemption doctrine. The most prominent opinion was being based on the fact that the mentioned AB 51 came up with an unlawfully unfair prejudice to the policies concerning the agreement of arbitration, which necessarily seemed like a dispute of taproot against the FAA’s resistance for the agreement of arbitration concerning others who involve themselves in the business of dealing with contracts. The court stated that though states have the powers to oversee arbitration agreements like other contracts they do not have the mandate to create additional responsibilities on them. Since AB 51 punished employers who used arbitration agreements, it successfully created disincentives for the use of arbitration, which is a possible consideration that the FAA is aimed at preventing.

Implications for California Employers and Employees

The implications of this ruling are widespread and affect employers and employees in California, among others. Today, employers will be sure to use arbitration clauses as a standard component of employment agreements without any doubts because federal legislation protects such clauses. To employees, therefore, the decision implies that Arbitration can be enforced as a condition of employment, consequently restricting employees’ rights to seek legal redress outside of the courts. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that these arbitration agreements still have to meet the requirements of the FAA and must prohibit the substantive rights of the employees.

Chamber of Commerce v Bonta is an inflection point of the current discussion regarding the employment contract’s offshoot, involving arbitration agreements. While the ruling has the effect of upholding the breadth of power of the FAA and the validity of binding arbitration agreements, it further underscores a conflict between both the federal and state levels in regulating the employment practice. With the ever changing legal front, employers and employees should keep themselves updated on how such decisions automatically affect them in terms of right and obligations.

Understanding the Majority’s Decision

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, headed by Judge Sandra Ikuta rendered a decision affirming the district supremacist decision on agreements over arbitration. The majority’s decision is based on that the state laws obstructing the creation of arbitration agreements are inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. This momentous decision was based on an understanding of established rulings of the Supreme Court. The court pointed out that although AB 51 does not directly ban arbitration agreements, it places a negative stigma on them through the civil and criminal penalties that are placed on employers who do not comply with the provisions it laid down. Additionally, this amounted to a significant impediment of the validity of the arbitration agreements.

Rejection of California’s Argument Against FAA Application

The majority definitively refuted California’s arguments on non-applicability of the FAA. The state argued that AB 51 only governs conduct by employers at the pre-formation stage and does not impose on the finitely enforceable previously formed arbitration agreements. Nevertheless, the court pointed out that laws against the making of arbitration agreements go against the national policy that supports arbitration. This position rebutted California’s view of the law as only an anti-forced arbitration law in employment.

Contract Law Principles in Arbitration Agreements

The interpretation of the principles of the contract law, as applied to the setting of arbitration agreements, was one of the core aspects of the majority’s ruling. The court reacted to California’s notion that AB 51 strives against ‘forced arbitration’ saying that even agreements, concluded between parties of non-equal bargaining powers, or formed for contracts of adhesion can be consensual. The mainstream stood for such types of agreements and made emphasis on the fact that they are valid ones unless they are either procedurally or substantively unconscionable, or unenforceable on the bases of general contract rules.

Judge Lucero’s Dissenting Opinion

On the other hand, Judge Carlos Lucero, who is serving the U.S Tenth Court of Appeals through designation, had a different view of the case as well. He claimed that Arbitration can be mandated to employees as a condition of employment according to the Supreme Court. Judge Lucero’s dissent harped on the voluntariness and consensual aspect of arbitration agreements, insinuating that the majority decision leaves twilight on these fundamental doctrines.

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling settles the uncertainty about the application of arbitration agreements in the employment contracts and affirms their preemption of this field by the FAA. Nevertheless, this determination is not absolute, particularly with respect to arbitration pacts roped in by the FAA. However, FAA makes some exceptions with regards to various transportation workers involved in foreign or interstate commerce. The issue of the definition of the term “transportation worker” is again seen as a controversial point in the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration. This is important to California employers especially those who have ‘transportation workers,’ as it is necessary for them to understand the applicability of AB 51 to them despite of this exclusion.

Navigating the Complex Landscape of Employment Arbitration

Implications for Employers: Businesses must understand that while they can include arbitration clauses in employment contracts, these must comply with the FAA and general contract law principles.
Considerations for Employees: Employees should be aware of their rights regarding arbitration agreements and understand that these agreements are generally enforceable unless proven unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable.
Specific Concerns for Transportation Workers: The Ninth Circuit’s decision leaves room for interpretation regarding “transportation workers,” and employers in this sector should carefully evaluate the applicability of AB 51 in their specific context.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit’s holding in this case was a major development in the legal framework regarding employment arbitration. Both the employers and the employees need to be aware of and adjust to the changing readings of FAA and the state laws such as AB This decision impacts not only the present use of this framework by employers but also establishes a practice for employers regarding how such arbitration agreements might be addressed in the case of future legal claims.

Ninth Circuit ruling of AB 51 provides a major landmark in labour laws, particularly the aspect on arbitration agreements. The choice highlights the supremacy of the Federal Arbitration Act over state laws and defines the position on the legality of agreements to use arbitration in the sphere of employment. Given the fact that this decision does not only have significant influence on the current practices in employment but also establish a clear precedent for all future legal interpretations on employment arbitration, it is very important for both the employers and the employees to understand the consequences of this ruling.

Most recent blogs:

What Is a Pay Stub and Why It Matters for Employees and Employers

Pay stubs detail wages, deductions, and taxes, helping employees track earnings and employers comply with state payroll regulations. They support loan applications, reduce payroll disputes, and are required or regulated in many states across the U.S.

What Are the Proper Steps to Fire Someone in California?

Terminating an employee in California requires following legal guidelines, maintaining professionalism, and ensuring proper documentation. This guide outlines lawful termination reasons, key procedural steps, and best practices to reduce legal and financial risks.

How Long Does a Misdemeanor Stay on Your Record in California?

A misdemeanor conviction in California stays on public record indefinitely but may be eligible for expungement under specific conditions. Background checks typically show misdemeanor convictions for seven years, but expungement can remove them from most employment screenings.

How Do I Prepare a Script for Firing Someone?

Learn the professional steps for firing an employee, from preparing a script to handling emotional reactions. Understand the proper procedures, reasons, and communication techniques to ensure a smooth and respectful termination.

What Is Involved in a PAGA Lawsuit?

PAGA lawsuits allow employees to file claims for labor code violations on behalf of themselves and others in California. Employers can face significant penalties, prompting many to settle to avoid costly judgments.

What Are the Rules for 10-Minute Breaks?

California law mandates two paid 10-minute breaks and a 30-minute unpaid meal break for an eight-hour shift. Employers who fail to provide required breaks may face penalties, and employees can seek legal action for compensation.

Can I Work Six Hours Without a Lunch Break?

California law requires a 30-minute meal break for shifts over five hours, but employees can waive it if working exactly six hours. Employers must comply with strict labor laws, ensuring uninterrupted meal breaks and legal protections for workers.

What Can I Do If My Employer Didn’t Pay Me on Payday?

Employers in California must pay workers on time, or they may face penalties of up to 30 days' wages for delays. Employees can file wage claims, seek legal assistance, or report violations to the California Labor Commissioner's Office for unpaid wages.

What Qualifies as a Hostile Work Environment in California?

Employees in California facing severe or persistent harassment based on protected traits may have legal options under state and federal laws. Filing a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department or consulting an employment attorney can help protect workplace rights and seek compensation.

When Is a Doctor’s Note for Work Required in California?

California employers generally cannot demand a doctor's note for sick leave, but exceptions exist under specific laws and circumstances. Legal conflicts persist, and employers may require medical documentation for disability accommodations, FMLA leave, or other valid reasons.

What Does California Law Say About Final Paycheck Rules?

California law mandates that final paychecks be provided promptly, with termination pay due immediately and resignation pay within 72 hours. Employers must include all owed wages, expenses, and accrued benefits, with penalties for late or incomplete payments.

Can an Employer Deny a Doctor’s Note?

An employer may deny a doctor's note if the absence does not qualify for legal protections under disability or family leave laws. Employers must evaluate medical documentation, employee statements, and applicable laws before considering disciplinary action.

How Much Can You Sue an Employer for Misclassification?

An employer's misclassification tactics can deny you fair wages, benefits, and legal protections. You may be entitled to compensation, including back pay, retirement contributions, and potential punitive damages, by pursuing legal action.

How Serious Is an EEOC Complaint?

An EEOC complaint can lead to costly legal battles, reputational damage, and mandatory policy changes for businesses. Employers may face financial penalties, investigations, and compliance requirements, impacting operations and workforce morale.

Do You Have Sample Letters for Termination of a Contract?

A contract termination letter formally ends a business agreement while protecting interests. This guide outlines key steps, considerations, and sample letters.

What Is a WARN Notice in California?

The California WARN Act requires businesses with 75 or more employees to provide 60 days' notice before mass layoffs, plant closures, or relocations. Noncompliance can lead to fines, back pay, and healthcare costs, making adherence essential for legal and financial stability.

What Is FICA and How Does It Impact Payroll Taxes?

FICA is a payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare, requiring contributions from both employers and employees. Employers must withhold, match, and submit FICA taxes while following IRS guidelines on deposit schedules, wage bases, and additional Medicare tax requirements.

What Is At-Will Employment and How Does It Impact Employee Rights?

At-will employment allows employers and employees to end their working relationship at any time without cause, impacting job security and flexibility. While it provides businesses with staffing flexibility, employees face fewer legal protections and potential job instability.

Employers Should Exercise Caution When Terminating Employees After Disability Leave

Employers should exercise great caution when considering whether to terminate an employee who is on leave. Employers are cautioned not to automatically terminate employment solely because an employee has used or exhausted their disability leave entitlement.

What Is FUTA? 2025 Rates and How to Calculate FUTA Tax

The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) imposes a payroll tax on businesses that have employees, collecting revenue that funds unemployment benefits.

What Is the Difference Between a 1099 Contractor and an Employee?

A 1099 contractor operates independently, covering their own taxes and expenses, while a W-2 employee receives benefits and employer tax contributions. Misclassifying workers can result in fines, making it essential to assess control, financial arrangement, and job nature before classification.

How Do Contractors Typically Get Paid? Payment Methods and Legal Guidelines

Contractors receive payments through direct deposits, checks, payroll services, or online transfers, following legal and tax regulations. Proper classification, documented agreements, and compliance with IRS reporting ensure smooth transactions and avoid penalties.

What Is the Definition of a Non-Exempt Employee?

Non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime pay and must earn at least the federal minimum wage under FLSA regulations. Unlike exempt workers, they are typically paid hourly and receive 1.5 times their wage for extra hours.

Can Union Representatives Be Present at Disciplinary Meetings?

Employees have the right to request a union representative during investigative interviews that may lead to disciplinary action. Employers must comply or face potential labor law violations under the National Labor Relations Act.

What Is an FTE (Full-Time Equivalent)?

A full-time equivalent (FTE) measures employee work hours, combining part-time and full-time schedules into a standardized metric. Businesses use FTE calculations for staffing, budgeting, and compliance with regulations like the Affordable Care Act.

What Are the Signs of Unfair Treatment at Work?

Unfair treatment at work includes discrimination, pay gaps, and biased promotions, impacting employees' well-being and career growth. Recognizing signs like harassment, favoritism, and wrongful termination helps employees take action against workplace discrimination.

What Is a Statutory Employee on a W-2 Form?

A statutory employee is a self-employed worker classified as an employee for tax withholding purposes, receiving a W-2 instead of a 1099-MISC. These workers can deduct business expenses on Schedule C but typically do not receive traditional employee benefits like health insurance or retirement plans.

What Laws Protect Employees From Workplace Bullying

20240114

428

California’s Ban on Mandatory Arbitration in Employment Overturned by Ninth Circuit Court