BILL NUMBER: AB 335	ENROLLED
	BILL TEXT

	PASSED THE SENATE  SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
	PASSED THE ASSEMBLY  SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
	AMENDED IN SENATE  JULY 23, 2009
	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, 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 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.


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 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
presumed to be against the public policy of this state if the
provision would do either of the following:
   (1) Require the employee or job applicant to resolve claims
outside of California that arose from employment, or the securing of
employment, in California.
   (2) 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) 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.