BILL ANALYSIS
AB 335
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 335 (Fuentes) - As Introduced: February 18, 2009
SUBJECT : EMPLOYMENT LAWS: WAIVER, FOREIGN STATES AND FORUMS
KEY ISSUE : IF A PERSON IS EMPLOYED IN CALIFORNIA, SHOULD HIS OR
HER EMPLOYER BE ALLOWED TO REQUIRE THE EMPLOYEE TO WAIVE THE
PROTECTIONS OF CALIFORNIA LAW AND PRE-SELECT THE LAW OF ANOTHER
STATE TO GOVERN THAT PERSON'S EMPLOYMENT, OR REQUIRE THE
EMPLOYEE TO TRAVEL TO ANOTHER STATE OR FOREIGN COUNTRY TO
RESOLVE A LEGAL DISPUTE?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
The employment rights advocates supporting this bill argue that
an employer in California should not be allowed to avoid
California employment laws by unilaterally adopting policies or
drafting contractual agreements that force California employees
to waive the protections of California law. Similarly,
supporters argue that employers should not be allowed to
pre-select the law of some other state more favorable to the
employer and impose that choice on the company's California
employees involuntarily as a condition of taking or retaining
employment, or require California employees to travel to other
distant states or foreign countries chosen by the employer in
order to seek redress for violations of law. This bill would
declare such policies unconscionable, violative of public policy
and void. Opponents representing employer interests perceive
the bill to be an outright ban on such agreements, which they
argue is unnecessary and counter-productive. Supporters respond
that the bill does not flat out prohibit choice of law or other
provisions, but simply requires that they be agreed to
voluntarily - not imposed as a condition of employment.
SUMMARY : Prohibits certain clauses in employment agreements
regarding the resolution of California employment disputes if
they are imposed on an employee involuntarily as a condition of
employment. Specifically, this bill :
AB 335
Page 2
1)Prohibits an employer from requiring 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.
2)Prohibits an employer from requiring 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.
3)Provides that 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 requires 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, or deprives the employee or job
applicant of the protection of California law for claims
arising from employment, or the securing of employment, in
California.
4)Provides that nothing in this provision affects the rights 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 subject to independent consideration.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Codifies the established doctrine that the courts will not
enforce an unconscionable contract. (Civil Code section
1670.5).
2)Defines unconscionability as having both a "procedural" and a
"substantive" element, the former focusing on "oppression" or
"surprise" due to unequal bargaining power, the latter on
"overly harsh" or "one-sided" results. (Armendariz v.
Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83,
114(2000)).
3)Rejects forum selections clauses which "would substantially
diminish the rights of California residents in a way that
violates our state's public policy." (America Online, Inc. v.
Superior Court, 90 Cal. App. 4th 1, 12 (2001)).
AB 335
Page 3
4)Provides with respect to a contract between a contractor and a
subcontractor for the construction of a public or private work
of improvement in this state that a provision shall be void
and unenforceable if it purports to require any dispute
between the parties to be litigated, arbitrated, or otherwise
determined outside this state or purports to preclude a party
from commencing such a proceeding or obtaining a judgment or
other resolution in this state or the courts of this state.
(Code of Civil Procedure section 410.42).
COMMENTS : The author explains the need for the bill as follows:
"Under existing law, employers may seek to force California
workers to litigate or arbitrate their labor and employment
claims under the laws of other States (even other nations) and
in foreign jurisdictions, even if the employee lives in
California, works in California, and the dispute arose in
California. As a result, employers, particularly out-of-state
employers, are able to evade the requirements of California law,
discourage California workers from bringing suits to enforce
their rights, and ensure that any claims are heard in a
jurisdiction favorable to the employer.
This bill would prohibit employers from forcing California
workers or job applicants to agree, as a condition of
employment, to choice of law, choice of forum, and choice of
venue provisions in job applications, employment agreements,
employment handbooks or other statements of employer policies
applicable to its employees if the provision would have the
effect of: 1) depriving the employee or job applicant of the
protection of California law for claims arising from employment,
or the securing of employment, in California; or 2) requiring
the employee or job applicant to arbitrate or litigate outside
of California claims that arose from employment, or the securing
of employment, in California.
By prohibiting these types of contract clauses, this bill would
prevent employers from evading California's labor laws. This
bill would also promote fairer competition between in-state
businesses that are subject to California's strong worker
protection laws, and out of state businesses that can save costs
by subjecting their California employees to less favorable laws
and less convenient fora and/or venues."
This Bill Would Prohibit Certain Employment Terms Purporting to
AB 335
Page 4
Waive California Law, Pick Another State's Law or Require
California Employees To Travel To Other States To Enforce Their
Legal Rights If These Terms Are Imposed On An Employee As A
Condition of Employment. Employers currently may insert certain
clauses in employment materials that purport to waive the
employee's rights under California law. In addition, employers
may pre-select the employer's favored state law (or the law of
another nation) and also require employees to travel to that
state or nation or some other distant place if a discrimination,
harassment of other employment dispute arises in order to
attempt to resolve the dispute. Employers may place these
clauses in job applications, employment agreements, employment
handbooks, or other statements of an employer's policies
applicable to its employees and make them a condition of
accepting or keeping a job.
Examples of Alleged Difficulties. According to the author,
worker advocates have increasingly reported incidents of
employees being unable to enforce their rights under California
law because the employer imposed a requirement that employment
disputes be adjudicated in a distant jurisdiction and/or subject
to the laws of a state with weaker employee protections than
California. For example, the sponsor cites an employee with
multiple sclerosis who approached an attorney seeking to bring a
disability discrimination case under California's broadly
protective Fair Employment and Housing Act. However, the
employer had required the employee to sign an agreement imposing
Florida law on the employment relationship and mandating that
any claims be arbitrated in Florida. The client's disability
and the expense of litigating in a far away state would make it
very difficult for him to pursue his claim. In addition,
Florida's disability discrimination law is far less protective
than California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, and if this
employer's contract is enforced, the employee may not be
protected, the sponsor states.
The author cites other cases where choice of law or forum
clauses have been enforced against employees, including Olinick
v. BMG Entertainment, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 268)(California employee
forced to bring age discrimination claims in New York under New
York law), Hopkins v. Lotus Dev. Corp, 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis
8804 (N.D. Cal. 1995)(California employees required to litigate
age discrimination and other claims in Massachusetts), Flake v.
Medline Indus., Inc., 882 F. Supp. 947 (E.D. Cal.
1995)(requiring California employee to litigate age
AB 335
Page 5
discrimination claims in Illinois), Sarmiento v. BMG Entm't,326
F. Supp. 2d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 2003) requiring California employee
to litigate breach of contract and wage claims in New York).
While Existing Case Law May Preclude Enforcement Of These
Contract Provisions, This Bill Would Reduce Uncertainty and
Protracted Litigation To Resolve Each Controversy. As discussed
below, California law recognizes that one-sided choice of law or
choice of forum clauses that are not agreed to voluntarily may
be rejected as unconscionable. However, the case law is replete
with examples, such as those cited above, where the courts have
casually enforced such clauses with very little inquiry.
Moreover, even where these clauses are appropriately rejected,
it is time-consuming, burdensome and risky for the plaintiff to
pursue the case until this issue is resolved, with the result
that many legitimate wrongs may not be prosecuted. By adopting
a statutory rule, this bill would obviate the need for expensive
and protracted litigation and would therefore promote certainty
and early resolution of disputes on the merits.
The California Supreme Court recently examined choice of law
rules in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95
(2006) in holding that California privacy laws apply to the
recording of conversations by telephone placed from Georgia.
Where there is no contract between the parties, the court
explained, "California has applied the so-called governmental
interest analysis in resolving choice-of-law issues. In brief
outline, the governmental interest approach generally involves
three steps. First, the court determines whether the relevant
law of each of the potentially affected jurisdictions with
regard to the particular issue in question is the same or
different. Second, if there is a difference, the court examines
each jurisdiction's interest in the application of its own law
under the circumstances of the particular case to determine
whether a true conflict exists. Third, if the court finds that
there is a true conflict, it carefully evaluates and compares
the nature and strength of the interest of each jurisdiction in
the application of its own law "to determine which state's
interest would be more impaired." (Id. at 107-08.)
However, when the parties to a contract have selected the law of
another jurisdiction, the courts have been much more
deferential, at least where the parties are commercial
sophisticated businesses. (Olinick v. BMG Entertainment, 138
Cal. App. 4th 1286, 1299-1300 (2006).)
AB 335
Page 6
Likewise, "forum selection clauses are valid and should be given
effect unless enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable."
However, if the place and manner restrictions of a forum
selection provision are "unduly oppressive," or have the effect
of shielding the stronger party from liability, then the forum
selection provision is unconscionable. To that end, a 'party
may attempt to make a showing that would warrant setting aside
the forum-selection clause - that the agreement was affected by
fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power; that
enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust; or that
proceedings in the contractual forum will be so gravely
difficult and inconvenient that the resisting party will for all
practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.'
Similarly, 'California favors contractual forum selection
clauses so long as they are entered into freely and voluntarily,
and their enforcement would not be unreasonable." The Court of
Appeal discussed the rationale for this favorable treatment in
Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight Loss Clinics Int'l, Inc., 32
Cal. App. 4th 1511, 1523, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 612 (1995), a case
involving weight-loss center franchises. The Court of Appeal
there stated that '[f]orum selection clauses are important in
facilitating national and international commerce, and as a
general rule should be welcomed.' Id. However, this favorable
treatment of forum selection clauses is conditioned on their
free and voluntary procurement, 'with the place chosen having
some logical nexus to one of the parties or the dispute, and so
long as California consumers will not find their substantial
legal rights significantly impaired by their enforcement.'
Therefore, to be enforceable, the selected jurisdiction must be
"'suitable,' 'available,' and able to 'accomplish substantial
justice.'" (Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1287-88
(9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).) AB 335 would affirm
employees' rights to voluntarily agree to choice of law and
forum selection clauses while ensuring that those provisions are
not made conditions of employment and are subject to independent
consideration.
By Requiring Out-of-State Employers To Play By The Same Rules As
California Employers, Bill Is Fairer To California Businesses.
The California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA), the
sponsor of this bill, argues that AB 335 would prevent
unscrupulous employers from evading California's strong worker
protection laws. CELA states that forum selection clauses and
AB 335
Page 7
choice of law clauses pose a particularly acute problem for
lower income workers and disabled workers. Those workers that
do have the resources or ability to travel might well find that
the protection that they had under California law does not
exist, or is not nearly as comprehensive, in the jurisdiction
that will be deciding their dispute.
CELA contends that the current situation benefits out-of-state
employers at the expense of California employers. Employers who
remain subject to the rigorous requirements of California labor
and employment law are at a distinct competitive disadvantage
when an out-of-state employer uses a choice-of-law provision to
exempt itself from California's laws governing employment
relationships and adopt another State's less burdensome regime.
Correcting this problem therefore benefits California employers
as well as employees and contributes to fair competition in
California.
This leveling of the playing field may be particularly
advantageous for California employers in the context of
non-competition agreements. It is believed that some
out-of-state companies (particularly in the tech industry)
require their employees to sign non-competition agreements that
are unenforceable in California because of our protective
standard for free enterprise under Business and Professions
Code, Section 16600. As many in the business community have
commented, our stringent laws on non-competition are good for
California employers because they are more free to hire whomever
they want without regard to the efforts of out-of-state
companies to prevent access to desirable employees. In an
effort to avoid our law, these out-of-state companies add choice
of law and forum provisions specifying another state. A rule
clarifying that these employment disputes cannot be subject to
distant forums would clearly be in the interest of both
California employers and employees because California employers
are at a disadvantage if they are required to adhere to
California's protective employment and labor laws while
out-of-state companies with operations here could contract their
way out of those laws, or discourage employees from enforcing
them. As the result of the court's decision in Advanced Bionics
Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc, 29 Cal 4th 697 (2002), California
companies are open to the potential for litigation in other
states, and out-of-state employers have an incentive to "race to
the courthouse" on non-compete clauses. In that case, the court
essentially permitted an out-of-state company to initiate
AB 335
Page 8
litigation to enforce a non-compete clause against a California
company, while preventing California courts from blocking that
litigation. It has been reported that attorneys representing
out-of-state companies have advised those out-of-state companies
to include forum selection clauses in an effort to increase the
chances that the non-compete contract will be litigated and
enforced in another state, making it more difficult and costly
for California companies to hire the employees they want. AB
335 would ensure that out-of-state companies are subject to the
same rules as California companies, and deter efforts to enforce
non-competition clauses in other states that are contrary to
California rules.
Controversy Regarding Adhesive Forum-Selection Clauses In
Similar Consumer Context . In a recent amicus curiae brief filed
in Aral v. Earthlink, 134 Cal. App. 4th 544 (2005), the Attorney
General explained why a forum selection clause was both
unconscionable and unenforceable under California law. In so
doing, the Attorney General aptly described the problem created
by forcing parties to litigate in distant forums, a problem this
bill appropriately seeks to address:
[I]t is one-sided and oppressive to force individual
consumers to abide by a forum selection clause requiring
them to litigate out of state, especially because
consumers invariably lack the financial and litigation
resources of the corporations they do business with.
The harshness of this situation is magnified by the
difficulty of locating counsel in the forum state,
difficulties in attorney-client communications, and
added expenses and hardships caused by being forced to
travel out of state for depositions and trial.
(Purcell, Geography as a Litigation Weapon: Consumers,
Forum-Selection Clauses, and the Rehnquist Court, 40
UCLA L. Rev. 423, 445-449 (1992).
For consumers on limited budgets, or seeking to bring
relatively small claims, the hardships imposed by a
forum selection clause will have the ultimate result of
preventing them from ever asserting their claims. The
clause therefore effectively denies consumers access to
the courts, and therefore due process. By contrast, the
corporation that imposes the forum selection clause
bears none of these burdens, and would benefit greatly
from the burdens it seeks to impose on consumers who
AB 335
Page 9
would otherwise consider suing it. That the clause has
such a result and disparate impact establishes its
substantive unconscionability.
The Attorney General explained that a forum selection clause
also has the effect of stripping consumers of the unwaiveable
right to bring an action in their county of residence as
provided by California Code of Civil Procedure section 395. The
brief explains:
Ensuring that consumers may bring actions in their home
counties prevents companies from seizing "immense
practical litigation advances . . . by methodically
forcing the burdens of geography onto . . . consumers."
(See Purcell, supra, 40 UCLA L. Rev. at 435-36.) Unlike
all other statutes specifying the proper forum or venue
for an action, Section 395(b) is protective of
consumers' due process right to convenient access to
California courts in order to bring and defend claims
arising from the offer or sale of goods, or services to
be used primarily for personal, family or household
purposes.
Sections 395(b) and 395(c) advance California's public
policy of ensuring access to a convenient forum for the
litigation of consumer disputes by preventing consumers
from having to [under]go the significant burden, expense
and difficulty of litigating in another state.
Recognizing that Sections 395(b) and (c) are applied in
determining venue, rather than forum, the AG commented:
[I]t would be most odd and wholly inconsistent to
interpret California law to bar a contract clause that
would force a Los Angeles County resident to litigate a
consumer case in Lodi but to enforce a contract clause
forcing the same consumer to litigate in Atlanta or
London. Thus, properly protecting the right of
consumers to litigate in a convenient forum requires
that questions of jurisdiction and venue be viewed as
inextricably linked.
In its decision rejecting enforcement of the forum selection
clause, the court in Aral noted that "a number of California
courts [have] enforced forum selection clauses where the
AB 335
Page 10
contract was between businesses of relatively equal bargaining
strength, even where litigating in the forum selected was likely
to be extremely inconvenient for the aggrieved party. Moreover,
despite the language in Smith seemingly limiting enforcement to
situations where the contract was "entered into freely and
voluntarily by parties who have negotiated at arm's length,"
forum selection clauses have been enforced where the contract
had the basic qualities of an adhesion contract - "a
standardized contract, imposed upon the subscribing party
without an opportunity to negotiate the terms." The court
noted, "Although both the California Supreme Court and the
United States Supreme Court place a heavy burden on the
plaintiff who seeks to prove that a forum selection clause is
unreasonable, particularly where the alleged unreasonableness is
based on the additional expense and inconvenience of litigating
far from home, the burden was not intended to be insurmountable.
If it is clear that 'trial in the contractual forum will be so
gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all
practical purposes be deprived of his day in court,' it would be
'unfair, unjust, and unreasonable' to enforce the forum
selection provision." (Id. at 559-561) (citations omitted).
Similar Statutory Protections Have Been Enacted For Construction
and Child Support Collection Contracts . Existing law provides
with respect to a contract between a contractor and a
subcontractor for the construction of a public or private work
of improvement in this state that a provision shall be void and
unenforceable if it purports to require any dispute between the
parties to be litigated, arbitrated, or otherwise determined
outside this state or purports to preclude a party from
commencing such a proceeding or obtaining a judgment or other
resolution in this state or the courts of this state. (Code of
Civil Procedure section 410.42.) This provision is broader than
that contemplated by the bill because it absolutely prohibits
such contract terms, even if voluntarily agreed to by both
parties.
In addition, private child support collectors are forbidden
under AB 2781 (Leno) of 2006 to require, as a condition of
providing services to an obligee, that the obligee waive any
right or procedure provided for in any state law regarding the
right to file and pursue a civil action, or that the obligee
agree to resolve disputes in a jurisdiction outside of
California or to the application of laws other than those of
California. Any waiver by the obligee of the right to file and
AB 335
Page 11
pursue a civil action, the right to file and pursue a civil
action in California, or the right to rely upon California law
as provided by law must be knowing, voluntary, and not made a
condition of doing business with the private child support
collector. Any waiver, including, but not limited to an
agreement to arbitrate or regarding choice of forum or choice of
law, that is required as a condition of doing business with the
private child support collector is presumed involuntary,
unconscionable, against public policy, and unenforceable.
(Family Code section 5614(b)(7).)
Bill Does Not Appear To Offend Constitutional Contract
Principles : Under the U.S. Constitution and the California
Constitution, a federal or state law may not unduly impair
existing contractual relationships. (U.S. Const. art. I, 10;
Cal. Const. art. I, 9.) However, even where a state
regulation imposes a substantial impairment on a contractual
relationship, the regulation will be upheld if a significant or
legitimate public interest justifies the regulation (i.e., the
law is aimed at a general social purpose and is not merely
"private interest legislation") and if the law adjusts the
parties rights in a reasonable and appropriate way (See Energy
Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400,
411-413 (1983); Associated Builders & Contractors v. Baca 769 F.
Supp. 1537, 1551(N. D. Cal. 1991). AB 335 is aimed at a broad,
generalized social problem potentially affecting every
California employee, not a private interest matter, and arguably
addresses the issue in a reasonable and appropriate way by
voiding only those contracts that are imposed as a condition of
employment. (See Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus 438
U.S. 324, 347, 349 (1978).)
A Louisiana law nearly identical to the proposed bill was upheld
as constitutional by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Sawicki v.
K/S Stavanager Prince and Assurance-Foreningen Skuld 802 So. 2d
598, 600 (La. 2001). The Louisiana law prohibits choice of
forum clauses and choice of law clauses in employment contracts,
except where "expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily agreed to
and ratified by the employee after the occurrence of the
incident which is the subject of the civil or administrative
action" (La. Rev. Stat. 23:921(A)(2).) The Louisiana Supreme
Court held that the statute did not violate the Contract Clause
because it did not impair the contractual relationship between
the employer and the employee and that the statute reasonably
accomplished a legitimate public purpose.
AB 335
Page 12
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Chamber of Commerce
argues that the bill "would create another incentive for
multi-state or international companies to offer employment to
individuals in states other than California." CalChamber bases
its argument on the following reasons:
First, AB 335 is unnecessary and overrides judicial
discretion. Under existing law, California employees are
already protected from contractual choice of law or forum
provisions which are unreasonable or would substantially
diminish their California legal protections. California
courts already have the discretion to deem such provisions
unenforceable.
Second, AB 335 could result in fewer employment
opportunities for Californians in today's global workplace.
Employers and jobs are increasingly mobile and not
constrained by geographical boundaries. Technology allows
employers headquartered in other states or other countries
to have increasing flexibility to offer jobs around the
globe. AB 335 discourages such employers from offering
employment in California if doing so means they travel
across the country or overseas to appear in California
courts.
Third, whether to accept a choice of forum or law as a
"condition of employment," is in fact tied to a voluntary
decision by the employee to accept an offer of employment.
Every offer of employment involves a set of conditions
about which the prospective employee makes choices. When
unacceptable, the offer of employment is rejected.
Finally, AB 335 sets a bad precedent for statutory
interference with the Constitutional right of parties to
contract. In doing so, the state is in essence writing
provisions of private parties' contracts.
The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) is opposed to
the bill, stating:
The Civil Justice Association of California supports
parties' right to freely contract as they wish. Contractual
relationships tend to differ from situation to situation,
and certain situations may be best served by a choice of
AB 335
Page 13
law other than California's.
We have three primary concerns with the bill: It is
unnecessary, as California law already protects California
residents from unreasonable contract provisions and
unreasonable choice of law provisions. We should allow
judges to balance factors in individual cases to determine
if a choice of law clause is appropriate. It sets a
dangerous precedent for prohibiting other choice of law
provisions.
CJAC argues that the bill is unnecessary. "California
residents are already protected from unjust contracts.
California courts are free to ignore contract terms
dictating a different choice of law if doing so would cause
a Californian to lose the protections of California law.
(America Online Inc. v Superior Court, 108 Cal. Rptr 2d
699, 702; Thomson v. Continental Insurance Company, 66 Cal.
2d 738.)
CJAC argues in addition, "Judges should have the discretion
to allow forum selection clauses when appropriate. If AB
335 becomes law, judges will be prevented from allowing
forum selection clauses when appropriate. Not all
employees in California are similarly situated - think
about a highly paid entertainers or sports figures - and
they should not be treated similarly. We should not ban
forum selection clauses entirely, because they are
appropriate in certain situations. A corporation
headquartered out of state who has some employees in
California may use a standard employment contract that
chooses the law of its home state, and they should be
allowed to do so. Courts can and should exercise their
discretion as to whether, in a particular case, that clause
is reasonable or not. (Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v.
Superior Court, 17 Cal.3d 491.)
Finally, CJAC contends that "this bill starts us down the
proverbial slippery slope. Certain states have
well-developed complex law regarding certain areas:
Delaware and Corporations law, Connecticut and Insurance
law, for example, and many non-residents of those states
use choice of law clauses to utilize the most well
developed and modern law. California residents benefit
from seeing the development of that body of law. This bill
AB 335
Page 14
is the first step towards outlawing all choice of law
clauses in contracts, which would be detrimental to
California consumers, taxpayers and businesses.
Prior Related Legislation. This bill is virtually identical to
AB 1043 (Swanson) of 2007, which passed out of this Committee,
and was eventually enrolled before being vetoed by the Governor
with the following veto message:
This bill appears to create a solution in search of a
problem. California law currently ensures that employees
cannot be subjected to unconscionable contract provisions
that would force them to forego the protections of
California law or litigate their claims in an inappropriate
out-of-state forum. Moreover, this bill creates unnecessary
and unhelpful uncertainties for the employers and employees
concerning issues of federal preemption. Lastly, I strongly
support the right of parties to freely contract for the
terms of their employment relationship. This bill
fundamentally conflicts with that policy.
AB 1740 (Judiciary) of 2005 would have prohibited the
enforcement of provisions in consumer agreements which require
disputes to be resolved in a forum outside the State of
California. That bill passed this Committee but was ultimately
not pursued in the Senate.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Employment Lawyers Association (sponsor)
California Applicants' Attorneys Association
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
Consumer Attorneys of California
Opposition
California Chamber of Commerce
California Department of Industrial Relations
Civil Justice Association of California
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker and Lakeisha Hood / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334
AB 335
Page 15