The State of California recently signed into law a new code provision that prohibits employment agreements that require employees within California to agree to application of another state’s law or to resolve disputes in another state. Since the new law – Section 925 – only applies to employment agreements entered into or modified starting January 1, 2017, employers should promptly begin assessing their employment agreements to ensure they are prepared for its rollout.
What does the California law prohibit?
California law is notoriously unfavorable to employers. One critical example of this is California’s broad prohibition of noncompete agreements with California employees. Selecting another state’s law to apply to an agreement has been one way to potentially get around this prohibition, even though out-of-state employers have long faced difficulties in seeking to enforce such choice-of-law forum-selection clauses in California courts. The new California code, however, greatly increases this difficulty. Section 925 explicitly prohibits an employer from requiring an employee who resides and works in California to sign an agreement as a condition of employment that would either:
Under Section 925 any such choice of law or forum selection clause may be voided at the request of the employee, after which California law would apply to the agreement and the underlying legal matter would have to be litigated or arbitrated in California.
Penalties for employer violations of the California code include an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the agreement and reasonable attorney’s fees for the employee, among other things.
Significantly, Section 925 will not apply retroactively, so agreements entered into before the effective date of January 1, 2017, are not subject to the new code. Furthermore, it does not apply to an agreement in which the employee was represented by legal counsel throughout the negotiation process.
What choices do employers have to comply?
Although the constitutionality of Section 925 is likely to be challenged in the courts, employers with California employees should begin preparing for the new law’s January 1, 2017, effective date. In doing so, employers might consider the following strategies:
These are just some of the options multi-state employers have in considering how to comply with California’s Section 925 while still maintaining consistency and predictability in employment agreements. Companies with California employees should consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance with this new law.
Please also visit Gray Plant Mooty’s labor and employment blog, the Modern Workplace, for continued analysis of Section 925 and other employment topics.
Gray Plant Mooty is recognized as one of the leading corporate law firms in Minnesota and one of the top franchise firms in the world. Our roots go back to 1866. Today, we are a full-service firm with nearly 180 attorneys and offices in Minneapolis and St. Cloud, Minnesota; Washington, D.C.; and Fargo, North Dakota.