BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Senator Tony Mendoza, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: AB 465 Hearing Date: June 10, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Roger Hernández | |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------| |Version: |April 30, 2015 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant:|Alma Perez-Schwab | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Contracts against public policy. KEY ISSUES Should the Legislature prohibit a person from requiring another to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of Labor Code as a condition of employment? Should any such waiver of a legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure be knowing and voluntary and in writing to ensure that workers are not being coerced into signing contracts to waive their right to take violations to the Labor Commissioner or to court and instead submit all claims to the employer's arbitrator? Should a person who violates these requirements, in addition to any other remedies available, be liable for a civil penalty of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per individual for each violation AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 2 of ? as well as reasonable attorney's fees? ANALYSIS Existing law specifies that negotiation of terms and conditions of labor should result from voluntary agreement between employer and employees. Further, existing law grants employees full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing to negotiate the terms and conditions of his employment. Any person or agent or officer thereof who coerces or compels any person to enter into an agreement, written or verbal, not to join or become a member of any labor organization, as a condition of securing employment or continuing in the employment of any such person is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Labor Code §922-923) Existing law establishes the California Arbitration Act which provides that agreements to arbitrate shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq.) Existing federal law similarly establishes the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) which provides that agreements to arbitrate shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. (9 USC Section 1 et seq.) This Bill would prohibit a person from requiring another person to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of Labor Code, as a condition of employment, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Labor Commissioner, state agency, other public prosecutor, law enforcement agency, or any court or other governmental entity. AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 3 of ? Additionally, this bill would: 1. Prohibit a person from threatening, retaliating, or discriminating against another person for refusing to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for violations. 2. Provide that any waiver of any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this code shall be knowing and voluntary and in writing, and expressly not made as a condition of employment. 3. Specify that any waiver of any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this code that is required as a condition of employment shall be deemed involuntary, unconscionable, against public policy, and unenforceable. 4. Specify that any person seeking to enforce a waiver of any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this code shall have the burden of proving that the waiver was knowing and voluntary and not made as a condition of employment. 5. Apply to any agreement to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of this code, including an agreement to accept private arbitration, entered into, altered, modified, renewed, or extended on or after January 1, 2016. AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 4 of ? 6. Provide that in addition to any other remedies available, a person who violates this section is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per individual for each violation of this section and reasonable attorney's fees. 7. Make related legislative findings and declarations regarding rights under the Labor Code. COMMENTS 1. Federal Preemption and Court Decisions on the Matter: Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution outside of the judicial court system where a third party reviews the evidence in the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) [9 U.S.C. Sec. 2], originally enacted in 1925 and then reenacted and codified in 1947, states that: "[a] written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction ? shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." In other words, an arbitration agreement may only be invalidated for the same reasons as other contracts. Additionally, California's Arbitration Act reinforces the federal provisions by clearly stating that agreements to arbitrate shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. In interpreting the FAA and the CAA, the U.S. Supreme Court AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 5 of ? has declared that by agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim, a party does not forgo the rights afforded by statute, it simply submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial forum. [Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991)] In ensuring that any such agreement is legal and fair, the court has stated that any lawfully mandated employment arbitration agreement must (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83): 1. Provide for neutral arbitrators; 2. Provide for more than minimal discovery; 3. Require a written award; 4. Provide for all of the types of relief that would otherwise be available in court; and 5. Does not require employees to pay either unreasonable costs or any arbitrators' fees or expenses as a condition of access to the arbitration forum. Additionally, also in the Armendariz case, the CA Supreme Court stated that, "There is, of course, one major difference between the FAA and the CAA. The former generally preempts state legislation that would restrict the enforcement of arbitration agreements ? while the CAA obviously does not prevent our Legislature from selectively prohibiting arbitration in certain areas." States are permitted to set standards around fair contracting, as well as to protect workers from retaliation to ensure that contracts are agreed to voluntarily. In fact, in 2014, this legislature passed and the governor signed AB 2617 (Weber), enacting these same protections against mandatory waivers of civil rights protections. AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 6 of ? 2. Controversy over Arbitration Agreements: The use of mandatory arbitration to settle employment claims has steadily risen since the early 1990s. In 1991, the United States Supreme Court decided Gilmer v. Interstate Johnson/Lane, Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991), a case that involved a suit brought by an employee alleging age discrimination by the employer in which the employer moved to compel arbitration on the basis of a pre-dispute agreement to arbitrate. In Gilmer, the Court noted that parties may agree to arbitrate statutory claims via an enforceable agreement, thereby explicitly holding that pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate were both legitimate and enforceable. However, some are critical of arbitration agreements which are forced and required as a condition of attaining or keeping employment. Critics argue that forced waivers of workplace claims eliminate important procedural guarantees of fairness and due process that are hallmarks of our judicial system. Below is a discussion of some of the criticisms and responses to the use of arbitration: Arbitration and its limitations: Supporters of mandatory arbitration assert that it is a more efficient and less costly manner of resolving legal disputes because they are able set their own rules for presenting evidence, schedule proceedings at their own convenience, and select the third party who will decide their cases. However, critics have argued that private arbitration agreements differ sharply from the rights and obligations under the Labor Code and point to some of the following limitations of existing law: Existing law permits arbitrators to disregard the law and/or the evidence in rendering their decisions. Awards may be enforced by the court, even if they are legally and factually erroneous. (Moncharsh v. Heily & AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 7 of ? Blase et al (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1.) Existing law allows private arbitrators to issue binding decisions that are legally enforceable but essentially not reviewable by a court; there is no appeal from an arbitrator's decision to a public court unless the arbitration agreement expressly provides for judicial review. (Crowell v. Downey Community Hospital Foundation (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 730; Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 44 Cal. 4th 1334 (2008).) Existing law permits enforcement of private arbitration agreements that preclude not only access to the courts but also access to other governmental bodies responsible for enforcing state laws, such as administrative complaint procedures regarding employment laws. (Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 174 Cal. App. 4th 546 (2009), rev. granted, 99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 866 (2009).) Existing law allows arbitrators to conduct arbitrations without allowing for discovery, complying with the rules of evidence, or explaining their decisions in written opinions. (Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1283.1, 1282.2, 1283.4.) Existing law permits arbitrations to be conducted in private with no public scrutiny. [Ting v. AT&T (2002) 182 F.Supp. 2d 902 (N.D. Cal.), affirmed, 319 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir 2003)] Existing law allows arbitrators substantial if not absolute immunity from civil liability for acts relating to their decisions, even in the case of bias, fraud, corruption or other violation of law. (Baar v. Tigerman AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 8 of ? (1983) 140 Cal. App. 3d 979.) The process of Arbitration is unregulated and biased: Critics of private arbitration also argue that it is an unregulated industry, which is often costly and unreceptive to consumers. Consumer advocates view mandatory arbitration as putting consumers and businesses employees on an uneven playing field that creates an inclination by arbitrators to decide cases in favor of businesses. Among other things, they state that: One party (the employer) unilaterally picks its preferred private arbitration company who writes the rules by which the arbitration will be conducted. The pre-selected arbitration company likewise chooses the arbitrators who are made available for the parties to select from. Private arbitrators need not be judges nor are they required to issue written opinions justifying their decisions. 3. Need for this bill? Arbitration can be a legitimate form of conflict resolution as long as all parties involved are fully informed on how arbitration works and agree to the terms voluntarily. Recent trends show a practice of making mandatory arbitration a condition of employment, a practice that could put the employee, or potential employee, at a disadvantage. Their options are either to sign the mandatory arbitration agreement and risk any future outcome on a dispute or refuse to sign the mandatory arbitration agreement and not take the job. In recent years, the use of arbitration agreements in employment cases has seen a dramatic rise. According to a March 2015 Wall Street Journal Article, titled More Companies Block Employees from Filing Suits, "The percentage of companies using arbitration clauses to preclude class-action claims from employees soared to 43% last year from 16% in 2012." Because AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 9 of ? of this trend, there have been many discussions as to the merits and benefits of using mandatory private arbitration as an alternative forum to the civil justice system. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee's analysis of AB 2617 (Weber) [legislation introduced last year and signed into law by Governor Brown, which provides that a person shall not require another person to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act or the Bane Civil Rights Act as a condition of entering into a contract for the provision of goods and services]: "While arbitration may be appropriate where parties have relatively equal bargaining power and have mutually agreed upon the forum, it arguably is not appropriate when the contract is one of adhesion in that a person has been forced to sign without the right to negotiation. This is particularly true in instances where an individual signs arbitration agreements that encompass unwaivable statutory rights." Existing state and federal law allows for these types of agreements as long as they are fair and mutually agreed to. This bill [AB 465] largely tracks the provisions found in AB 2617 which would prohibit a person from requiring another to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure [not just specifically to arbitration agreements] for a violation of any provision of the Labor Code as a condition of employment. It will require that these agreements be voluntary and not required as a condition of employment. This bill would also prohibit employers from threatening, retaliating, or discriminating against workers for refusing to sign such a waiver. While this bill does not completely bar waivers of legal rights in these cases, the bill would ensure that all waivers are made knowingly and voluntarily. AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 10 of ? 4. Proponent Arguments : According to the author and the sponsor, the goal of this bill is to protect workers from being coerced into signing contracts to waive the right to take labor violations to the Labor Commissioner or to court and instead submit all claims to the employer's arbitrator. The sponsors argue that there are very few remedies available to most low-wage workers when their rights are violated. They can file a claim with the Labor Commissioner or they can find access to counsel through a collective legal action. Unfortunately, some employers, they argue, have found a way to circumvent these avenues by requiring workers to sign waivers of the right to take claims to the Labor Commissioner or to court and instead require them to take any claims to the employer's private arbitrator. The author argues that forced waivers (including mandatory arbitration) of workplace claims are anathema to our public justice system because they eliminate important procedural guarantees of fairness and due process that are hallmarks of our judicial system. They are also fundamentally inferior, argues the author, and employers often require them as a condition of employment, which means employees will be fired or not hired if they do not give up their rights to resolve employment claims in a court of law. Further, proponents claim that employers craft the terms of the forced arbitration provisions and typically select the arbitration services providers for the dispute which creates a "repeat player advantage" that favors employers utilizing the same provider to resolve their employment disputes and disadvantages individual employees who are one-time participants in the process. Proponents also argue that many times these clauses are buried in the fine print of employment applications, employee handbooks and manuals and as a result, it is nearly impossible for an employee to evaluate and make an informed choice about the appropriateness of a resolution mechanism prior to the existence of an actual employment dispute. Additionally, as AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 11 of ? these become more common, they are increasingly seeing them in low-wage workplaces where immigrant workers who may not even speak the language used in the contract are required to sign as a condition of employment. For these reasons, proponents argue the importance of this bill and state that it is designed to ensure that waivers of important employment rights and procedures arising under California law are made voluntarily and with the consent of the employee. With regards to FAA preemption, proponents argue that preemption would occur only in cases in which FAA applies. They argue that the FAA does not apply to all cases; for example, there are many cases that do not implicate interstate commerce and to which, as a result, the FAA is inapplicable. Further, they argue that there are other cases in which the parties' choice of law clause is written in a way that makes the FAA inapplicable. In either of these circumstances, California law, including this bill, would govern. Lastly, proponents state that nothing in the bill undermines the ability of employers or workers to voluntarily enter into arbitration agreements; the bill simply provides a minimal level of protection to keep workers from being coerced into waiving basic rights. 5. Opponent Arguments : Opponents have raised concerns that the restrictions on waivers in this bill may be preempted by federal law. They believe that the FAA and the CAA evidence strong preference for enforcement of arbitration agreements, so long as the underlying contract is fair. According to opponents, the prohibition sought with this bill directly conflicts with rulings from both the CA Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court and, if signed into law, they believe it will be challenged and ultimately found to be preempted as well. They argue that this bill will only serve to drive up litigation costs increasing individual claims, representative actions and class action lawsuits against employers of all sizes until such legislation can work through the judicial process to be AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 12 of ? challenged. Opponents argue that adequate protections already exist for mandatory, pre-dispute employee arbitration agreements and cite the Armendariz v. Foundation Health CA Supreme Court case which held that pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements upon which employment is conditioned that encompass unwaivable statutory rights are valid and enforceable as long as the following contractual protections are included: (1) provide for a neutral arbitrator; (2) no limitation of remedies; (3) adequate opportunity to conduct discovery; (4) written arbitration award and judicial review of the award; and, (5) no requirement for the employee to pay unreasonable costs that they would not incur in litigation or arbitration. They argue that arbitration agreements that have not included these mandatory provisions have regularly been struck down as unconscionable. Additionally, opponents contend that arbitration provides an effective and efficient means to resolve employment-related claims. They cite data from the U.S. District Court Judicial Caseload Profiler which shows that there were 29,312 civil cases filed in California in 2014. As of June 2014, approximately 2,132 cases had been pending in federal court in California for over three years and the median time from filing of a civil complaint to trial in Northern California was 31 months. Comparatively, they note, a 2003 article in the New York University School of Law legal journal regarding employment arbitration found that arbitration was resolved within a year while litigation usually lasted over two years. Opponents also cite a 2006 study by Mark Fellows, Legal Counsel at the National Arbitration Forum, titled "The Same Result as in Court, More Efficiently: Comparing Arbitration and Court Litigation Outcomes," which concluded that consumers and employees actually fare better in arbitration than in court. Fellows specifically analyzed data from California and found that consumers prevail in arbitration 65.5% of the time, as compared to 61% of the time in court. AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 13 of ? They argue that arbitration is a valuable alternative method to resolve disputes in an efficient manner and should be encouraged. Instead, they argue that this bill will force more employment disputes into the already overburdened judicial system, thereby delaying any recovery of potential wages for an employee even longer by essentially banning any predispute, mandatory employment arbitration agreements. 6. Double Referral : This bill has been double referred to this Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. Should the bill be approved today, it will be sent to Senate Judiciary for a hearing. 7. Prior Legislation : AB 2617 (Weber) of 2014: Chaptered This bill largely tracks the provisions of AB 2617 (Weber), legislation introduced last year and signed into law by Governor Brown, which provides that a person shall not require another person to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act or the Bane Civil Rights Act as a condition of entering into a contract for the provision of goods and services. AB 1715 (Assembly Judiciary Committee) of 2003: Vetoed AB 1715 would have, among other things, made it an unlawful employment practice for a covered employer to require an employee to waive any rights or procedures under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) as a condition of employment. This bill was vetoed by Governor Gray Davis. AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 14 of ? SB 1538 (Burton) of 2002: Vetoed SB 1538 would have, among other things, made it an unlawful employment practice to require an employee to waive any rights or procedures under FEHA, and would have made any pre-dispute arbitration agreement between an employer and employee that violated this prohibition unenforceable. This bill was vetoed by Governor Gray Davis. SUPPORT California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO (Sponsor) American Civil Liberties Union of CA American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees CA Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union CA Conference of Machinists California Employment Lawyers Association California Immigrant Policy Center California Nurses Association California Professional Firefighters California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc. California School Employees Association California State Council of Laborers California State Firefighters' Association California Teamsters Public Affairs Council CLEAN Carwash Campaign Congress of California Seniors Consumer Attorneys of California Consumer Federation of California Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety Engineers and Scientists of CA, IFPTE Local 20 Equal Rights Advocates International Association of Boilermakers International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers International Association of Iron Workers International Association of Sheet Metal Workers International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers International Longshore and Warehouse Union International Union of Operating Engineers Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund Painters and Allied Trades International Union Professional and Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21 Service Employees International Union, California State Building and Construction Trades Council AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 15 of ? The Wage Justice Center United Association Union of Plumbers, Fitters, Welders, & Service techs United Union of Roofers and Allied Workers UNITE-HERE Utility Workers Union of America OPPOSITION Air Conditioning Trade Association Associated Builders and Contractors of California Associated General Contractors Association of California Insurance Companies California Apartment Association California Association for Health Services at Home California Association of Health Facilities California Association of Realtors California Bankers Association California Building Industry Association California Business Properties Association California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse California Chamber of Commerce California Employment Law Council California Farm Bureau Federation California Grocers Association California Hospital Association California Hotel and Lodging Association California League of Food Processors California Manufacturers and Technology Association California New Car Dealers Association California Newspaper Publishers Association California Retailers Association California Trucking Association Civil Justice Association of California National Federation of Independent Business Oxnard Chamber of Commerce Personal Insurance Association of California Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce Southwest California Legislative Council Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce AB 465 (Roger Hernández) Page 16 of ? West Coast Lumber & Building Materials Association Western Electrical Contractors Association Western Growers Association Wine Institute -- END -