BILL NUMBER: AB 335	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN SENATE  JUNE 26, 2009

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Fuentes

                        FEBRUARY 18, 2009

   An act to add Section 924 to the Labor Code, relating to
employment.



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 335, as amended, Fuentes. Employment contracts.
   Existing law prohibits certain employment contract provisions as
against public policy and declares provisions in certain construction
contracts between a contractor and subcontractor for work in this
state that purport to require dispute resolution between the parties
to be commenced or determined outside of the state to be void and
unenforceable.
   This bill would  make void and unenforceable as against
public policy any provision in an employment contract that requires
an employee, as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment, to
use a forum other than California, or to agree to a choice of law
other than California law, to resolve any dispute with an employer
regarding employment-related issues that arise in California
  establish a rebuttable   presumption that a
choice of law or choice of forum provision in an employment
agreement, handbook, or other statement of an employer's policies is
unconscionable, violates the public policy of the state, and is void,
if the provision would require an employee or job applicant to
arbitrate or litigate a claim outside of California that arose from
employment or conduct in this state or would deprive the employee or
applicant of the protection of California law for such a claim. The
bill would require a court to consider specified factors in
determining whether a person seeking to enforce the choice of law or
choice of forum provision has rebutted the presumption  .
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee:  no
  yes  . State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  The Legislature finds and declares the following:
   (a) It is the public policy of the State of California to ensure
that California employees have the full benefit of the provisions of
the California Labor Code and other provisions of California law that
relate to employment and that employees should not be deprived of
the protection of California law by contract provisions that require
employees or job applicants, as a condition of employment, to submit
to the laws of other states for claims that arise from employment, or
the securing of employment, in California.
   (b) All employees should have the right to access the California
courts to seek redress for employment claims and employees should not
be required to resolve these claims in foreign jurisdictions.

   (c) Any choice of law, choice of forum, or choice of venue

    (c)    Any choice of law or choice of forum
 provision in a job application, employment agreement,
employment handbook, or other statement of an employer's policies
applicable to its employees, is against the public policy of this
state if the  provision would have either of the following
effects:   provision would do either of the following:

   (1)  Requiring   Require  the employee
or job applicant to resolve claims outside of California that arose
from employment, or the securing of employment, in California.
   (2)  Depriving  Deprive  the employee or
job applicant of the protection of California law for claims arising
from employment, or the securing of employment, in California.
  SEC. 2.  Section 924 is added to the Labor Code, to read: 
   924.  (a) An employer shall not require an employee or job
applicant, as a condition of employment, to waive the application of
California law to any dispute relating to employment, or the securing
of employment, in California.
   (b) An employer shall not require an employee or job applicant, as
a condition of employment, to resolve outside of California any
dispute regarding employment, or the securing of employment, in
California.
   (c) Any choice of law, choice of forum, or choice of venue
provision in a job application, employment agreement, employment
handbook, or other statement of an employer's policies applicable to
its employees, is unconscionable, violative of the public policy of
this state, and void if the provision would have the effect of either
of the following:
   (1) Requiring the employee or job applicant, as a condition of
employment, to resolve claims outside of California that arose from
employment, or the securing of employment, in California.
   (2) Depriving the employee or job applicant of the protection of
California law for claims arising from employment, or the securing of
employment, in California.
   (d) Nothing in this section affects the right of an employee to
voluntarily agree to a choice of law or forum selection provision
that is not required as a condition of employment and that is the
subject of independent consideration. 
    924.   (a) Any choice of law or choice of forum
provision in an employment agreement, employment handbook, or other
statement of an employer's policies applicable to its employees is
presumed to be unconscionable, in violation of the public policy of
this state, and void if the provision would do either of the
following:
   (1) Require the employee or job applicant to arbitrate or litigate
a claim outside of California that arose from employment or conduct
occurring in California.
   (2) Deprive the employee or job applicant of the protection of
California law for claims arising from employment or conduct
occurring in California.
   (b) A court shall consider all of the following factors to
determine whether a person seeking to enforce a choice of law or
choice of forum provision has rebutted the rebuttable presumption
described in subdivision (a):
   (1) Whether the employee was represented by counsel in
negotiations regarding the employment agreement at the time that the
choice of law or choice of forum provision was incorporated into the
employment agreement.
   (2) Whether separate consideration was provided by the employer in
exchange for the choice of law or choice of forum provision.
   (3) Whether the choice of law or choice of forum provision
provides the employee with rights and remedies that are equal to, or
greater than, those provided by California law with respect to the
claim.
   (4) Whether the choice of law or choice of forum provision imposes
a financial burden or other burden that would deter the employee
from pursuing a claim against his or her employer.
   (c) This section does not replace any other remedy available under
law.