Divided Ninth Circuit Panel Upholds AB 51, but Strikes Down Enforcement Mechanism

2 Minute Read

October 6, 2021

On September 15, 2021, a divided Ninth Circuit panel in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, Case No. 20-15291, upheld Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), a bill that would prohibit employers from requiring employees to execute arbitration agreements as a condition of their employment. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling reversed in part the District Court’s ruling that AB 51 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

The FAA provides that arbitration agreements, like other contracts, “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,” unless they are the product of fraud or unconscionability, or they are otherwise unenforceable as a matter of generally applicable contract law. The majority concluded that AB 51 does not conflict with the FAA because it “does not make invalid or unenforceable any agreement to arbitrate, even if such agreement is consummated in violation of the statute.” Rather, the Court noted, the law’s effects “are aimed entirely at conduct that takes place prior to the existence of any such agreement.” The Court, however, held that AB 51’s accompanying enforcement mechanism that would impose criminal and civil sanctions on employers for violating AB 51 “directly conflicts with § 2 of the FAA” and is therefore preempted.

Judge Ikuta’s dissent heavily criticized the majority opinion, describing it as a clear “attempt to evade the FAA.” Judge Ikuta cited to Senate Judicial Committee Report on AB 51, which candidly acknowledges that “AB 51 seeks to sidestep the preemption issue” by “applying only to the condition in which an arbitration agreement is made, as opposed to banning arbitration itself.” Judge Ikuta also highlighted the perverse effects of the majority holding: “This holding means that an employer’s attempt to enter into an arbitration agreement with employees is unlawful, but a completed attempt is lawful.”

The business groups are expected to challenge the panel’s ruling, including up to the Supreme Court if necessary. AB 51 likely will not take effect while these legal challenges play out. In the meantime, employers are strongly encouraged to consult with counsel to evaluate potential changes to their arbitration agreement practices.

Tags: Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)

Kirk A. Hornbeck
Counsel
+1 213 532 2109
Email | vCard | Bio | Posts
Kirk has defended clients in dozens of class actions involving employee and consumer claims as well as statewide representative actions brought pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ...

You May Also Be Interested In

4 Minute Read

December 27, 2022

First Circuit Holds Local Delivery Drivers Are Subject to the FAA

By Eileen Henderson

In a significant win for employers operating businesses utilizing delivery drivers, on November 29, 2022, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held in Immediato v. Postmates, Inc. that couriers completing local, intrastate deliveries were not exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), and could be compelled to submit to arbitration, because they were not engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.

2 Minute Read

June 18, 2020

SCOTUS Considers Effect of Carve-Out Provision in Arbitration Agreement

By Ashley Lewis and Michael D. Morfey

On Monday, the US Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. It is a question on which circuits have been divided. On one hand, some courts have found that the gateway question of arbitrability—whether the claims fall within the scope of the carve-out provision—is for the arbitrator to decide. On the other, some courts have found that, where there is a carve-out provision, there is no clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator, and questions of arbitrability are to be decided by the court. Undoubtedly, resolution is necessary.

1 Minute Read

January 2, 2020

California Court Temporarily Enjoins Enforcement Of Law Prohibiting Arbitration Agreements As A Condition of Employment

As reported on December 30, 2019 on the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives blog, Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a temporary restraining order that temporarily prohibits the state of California from enforcing AB 51, a law that would prohibit companies in California from requiring arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.

3 Minute Read

December 16, 2019

US Chamber of Commerce Leads the Charge Against California Arbitration Ban That Would Impose Criminal Liability on Employers for Violations

By Jason J. Kim

On Friday, December 6, 2019, a business coalition led by the US Chamber of Commerce filed suit challenging a new California law that forbids employers from offering and entering into certain arbitration agreements with their workers. Signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10, 2019, Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) will impose criminal liability on employers who require applicants or employees, “as a condition of reemployment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit,” to “waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act” and other related employment statutes. Additionally, AB 51 will impose criminal liability on employers who retaliate against applicants or employees who refuse to enter into banned mandatory arbitration agreements.

Hunton Retail Law Resource

You May Also Be Interested In

Search

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives