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:

How to Calculate FTE

To calculate full-time equivalent (FTE), divide an employee's scheduled hours by the employer's hours for a full-time workweek.

Weingarten Rights

Understand Weingarten Rights: the right to have a representative during investigatory interviews as protected under the NLRA. Learn how these rights empower employees and safeguard their interests.

Can you get fired for using sick time

Understand your rights under California's Sick Leave Statute, protecting employees who need to take time off due to illness. Learn how legal protections safeguard against wrongful termination for using sick leave.

Insubordination in the workplace: 7 ways to manage

Navigate the challenges of insubordination in the workplace with effective strategies for managing difficult employee behaviors and fostering a positive work environment. Learn the importance of distinguishing between disagreement and insubordination for organizational health.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Explore the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in today's society. Learn how these values shape better, more inclusive communities and workplaces.

Human Resources (HR): Meaning and Responsibilities

Human Resources plays a pivotal role in recruiting, training, and managing employee relations, shaping a company's workforce for success. Discover the evolving responsibilities and strategic importance of HR in modern business dynamics.

10 Alternatives to Employee of the Month Awards

Discover the limitations of traditional Employee of the Month awards and explore ten innovative alternatives. Boost morale and recognition in your workplace with these creative solutions.

Learning To Learn

Discover the essential skills for modern leaders to thrive: learning to learn, adapting to change, and mastering new capabilities. Unveil strategies for personal growth and overcoming reluctance to embrace new challenges.

Gen Z Years, Age Range, Meaning, & Characteristics

Explore the defining years, age range, and unique characteristics of Generation Z, shaped by pivotal events like the pandemic and the digital age. Uncover insights into Gen Z's diverse demographics, digital nativity, and shifting social norms.

Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment and Law

Explore the origin and evolution of "quid pro quo," a principle that embodies mutual exchange in legal, political, and everyday contexts. Learn how it differentiates from bribery and shapes contracts, policies, and workplace ethics.

What is Sabbatical Leave? It’s the best kept secret in HR

Unlock the power of sabbatical leave to boost employee motivation and retention in a stagnating labor market. Learn how a planned break can give your company a competitive edge in attracting top talent.

At-Will Doctrine

Explore the at-will employment doctrine's impact on job security and termination rights in the US, highlighting key legal exceptions. Understand how at-will affects both employers and employees, with insights into valid termination causes and protections.

7-Day Work Week

Discover your rights under the 7-day work week laws, including eligibility for overtime and restrictions in some states. Learn about federal and state regulations, and when to seek legal action for wage violations.

What Happens When Employers Make False Promises

A false promise happens when a employer or hiring manager makes a statement on something the company can fulfill or avoid, but cannot or does not want to follow through with. You may bring a fraudulent inducement lawsuit against the employer for false promises for the harm you have suffered.

What to do if your employer doesn’t pay you?

If your employer failed to pay you for all of your work hours, a court could award you back pay. When your employer doesn't pay you, you should consult with an employment lawyer.

What to Do At a Job Fair to Impress Employers and Get the Interview

This article provides guidelines for job seekers to follow to ensure they are successful at career fairs. There are many things you can do to improve your chances of getting hired at a job fair.

Emotional Duress: How to Avoid

Emotional duress is an extremely unpleasant emotional response from someone else's conduct or actions. You can sue for money damages for anguish, or humiliation. This is known as emotional harm or mental anguish.

California Termination Laws

In California, an employee's employment may be terminated at the will of either party. Employees who are terminated must be paid all wages due at the time of termination.

Late Paycheck Penalty

When your paycheck is late, the employer has to pay a penalty of one day's pay for each day that the paycheck is late, up to a maximum of thirty days.

How To Calm Down Before An Interview

12 simple ways on to calm your nerves before and during an interview is to use relaxation techniques. Before an interview, imagine how you would ideally want to present yourself in the interview and then visualize yourself in the interview.

How to Include a Referral in Your Cover Letter?

Your cover letter should start with mentioning the referral's name because it instantly qualifies you. A referral cover letter helps you to define the mutual contact that has referred you for the job.

Best Job Options For Someone With A Criminal Record

This article identifies jobs for someone with a criminal record; examples are: delivery service, freelance designer, truck driver, chef, etc.

What are Weingarten Rights?

Weingarten rights guarantee an employee the right to Union representation during an investigatory interview by their employer.

What Is Job Rotation: Advantages And Disadvantages

Job rotation is the practice of moving employees between roles or positions in a company. Job rotation temporarily assigns employees to other roles to teach them new skills, learn about other functions within the team, and develop relationships across the business.

What is the meaning of Pay Rate?

Pay rate is the total money a worker receives during regular working hours, excluding overtime. In order words, pay rate, also called salary rate or compensation rate, is the wage amount paid to an employee per hour, per day, or per task completed.

How can part-time or temporary work help you explore career choices?

Part-time or temporary work offers a practical way to explore exploring and understanding what career you want. Temporary work or part time work gives you the opportunity to discover your strengths, preferences, and passions without the long-term commitment required by full-time work.

Understanding Incentive Pay: Definition, Types, and Benefits Explained

Learn how different forms of incentive pay, from bonuses to commission, can drive business success and enhance workforce engagement. Discover the key benefits and best practices of implementing incentive pay strategies in your organization, essential for attracting and retaining top talent.

What Happens When You Get Audited EDD

Gain clarity on the EDD audit process with our comprehensive guide, detailing what happens when you get audited by the Employment Development Department, including steps to prepare and respond effectively." "Navigate the complexities of an EDD audit smoothly with our expert insights, exploring the implications, documentation requirements, and key strategies to manage the auditing process efficiently and confidently.

What is FMLA Intermittent Leave of Absence?

An employee uses their 12 weeks of unpaid leave intermittently under FMLA Intermittent leave, taking it off and on, unlike continuous family medical leave or a reduced work schedule. FMLA leave can be taken intermittently by employees – in separate blocks of time for a single qualifying reason – or on a reduced leave schedule, which involves reducing the employee's usual weekly or daily work schedule, when it is medically necessary.

What is a statutory employee?

A statutory employee is a salesperson, either traveling full-time or based in a city, who represents you and submits orders from wholesalers, retailers, contractors, or operators of establishments such as hotels and restaurants. The merchandise sold should be for resale, or the supplies should be for use in the buyer's business operation. For you, the principal business activity performed must be the salesperson's work.

See all blogs: Business | Corporate | Employment

20240114

128

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