BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                       AB 465


                                                                      Page  1


        CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS


        AB  
        465 (Roger Hernández)


        As Amended  August 19, 2015


        Majority vote


         -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |ASSEMBLY:  |      | (May 14,      |SENATE: |      | (August 24,     |
        |           |45-30 |2015)          |        |22-15 |2015)            |
        |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
        |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
         -------------------------------------------------------------------- 


        Original Committee Reference:  L. & E.


        SUMMARY:  Imposes specified restrictions on contractual waivers of  
        rights and procedures under the Labor Code.  


        The Senate amendments:


        1)Eliminate a $10,000 civil penalty for violations of this bill.


        2)Provide for injunctive relief.


        3)Provide that this bill does not apply to persons registered with a  
          self-regulatory organization as defined by the federal Securities  
          Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to any requirement that that  
          individual arbitrate disputes that arise with their employer as  
          specified under the rules of the self-regulatory organization.








                                                                       AB 465


                                                                      Page  2




        4)Provide that this bill does not apply to an employee who is  
          individually represented by legal counsel in negotiating the terms  
          of an agreement to waive any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum,  
          or procedure for a violation of the Labor Code.


        5)Add a severability clause.


        6)Make other clarifying changes.


        FISCAL EFFECT:  None.  This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the  
        Legislative Counsel.


        COMMENTS:  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 submit all claims to the employer's  
        arbitrator.  Therefore, this bill 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.


        This bill largely tracks the provisions of AB 2617 (Weber), Chapter  
        910, Statutes of 2014, legislation introduced last year and signed  
        into law by Governor Brown, which imposed specified restrictions on  
        future contractual waivers of rights under the Ralph Civil Rights  
        Act and Bane Civil Rights Act.


        This bill is sponsored by the California Labor Federation, American  
        Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations  
        (AFL-CIO).  They state that there are very few remedies available to  
        most low-wage workers when their rights are violated.  They can file  
        a claim to the Labor Commissioner or they can find access to counsel  
        through a collective legal action.  Yet employers have found a way  
        to circumvent these avenues.  Increasingly, companies are requiring  








                                                                       AB 465


                                                                      Page  3


        workers to sign waivers of the right to take claims to the Labor  
        Commissioner or to court and instead requiring them to take any  
        claims to the employer's private arbitrator.  They argue that this  
        bill would provide some basic protections to these workers.  It  
        would require that these agreements be voluntary and not required as  
        a condition of employment.  It would require that a waiver of rights  
        be voluntary.  Lastly, it would prohibit employers from threatening,  
        retaliating, or discriminating against workers for refusing to sign  
        such a waiver.  These are core tenets of contract law and are  
        consistent with the Supreme Court's direction that such contracts  
        should not be entered into under coercion.


        Opponents argue that this bill directly conflicts with prior and  
        recent rulings from both the California and United States Supreme  
        Courts, which have consistently stated any state law that interferes  
        with the Federal Arbitration Act is preempted.  Opponents also argue  
        that adequate protections already exist for mandatory, pre-dispute  
        employee arbitration agreements.  Opponents contend that arbitration  
        provides an effective and efficient means to resolve  
        employment-related claims and that this bill will send disputes into  
        the overburdened and underfunded judicial system. 


        Analysis Prepared by:                                            Ben  
        Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091  FN: 0001435