BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1241 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 25, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mark Stone, Chair SB 1241 (Wieckowski) - As Amended August 19, 2016 As Proposed to be Amended SENATE VOTE: 25-13 SUBJECT: CONTRACTS KEY ISSUE: IN ORDER TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA EMPLOYEES FROM BEING FORCED TO LEAVE THE STATE OR BEING SUBJECTED TO THE POTENTIALLY LESS-PROTECTIVE LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE OR COUNTRY DURING A LEGAL DISPUTE, SHOULD AN EMPLOYEE BE ALLOWED TO VOID A CHOICE-OF-VENUE OR CHOICE-OF-LAW PROVISION THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE EMPLOYEE TO ADJUDICATE A LEGAL CLAIM OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA OR DEPRIVE THAT CALIFORNIAN FROM THE PROTECTION OF CALIFORNIA LAW? SYNOPSIS According to the author, an increasing number of businesses and employers are imposing choice of venue and choice of law contractual provisions on Californians in order to evade California law. These contractual provisions allow businesses and employers to pick laws or venues of other states (and even SB 1241 Page 2 other countries) to govern a legal dispute in the event that one arises. Accordingly, Californians who are forced to agree to these contractual terms must travel to another state or country to litigate or arbitrate a legal claim. Given the expense and burdens of going to another forum, this ultimately means that a consumer or an employee is unlikely to vindicate his or her legal rights. Originally, this bill allowed a California employee or consumer to void such one-sided provisions as described above. As proposed to be amended, this bill has been narrowed to apply only to California employees who primarily reside and work in California. Specifically, this bill prohibits an employer from requiring a California employee-as a condition of employment-to agree to a provision that would either: require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California, or deprive the employee of protection under California law. This bill exempts employees represented by legal counsel in negotiating specified employment terms or by a talent agency. As this analysis was being prepared, this Committee was unable to confirm the support or opposition for this bill as proposed to be amended; accordingly, there is no support or opposition on file. However, in its prior version, this bill was supported by consumer advocates, employment lawyers, small businesses, and California arbitrators, and was opposed by various business interests, led by the Chamber of Commerce, who primarily contended that the bill was unnecessary because courts could invalidate unfair contractual provisions. The author believes that the bill as proposed to be amended will remove most, if not all, of the opposition to the bill. SUMMARY: Allows an employee to void a contractual provision that requires the employee to adjudicate a legal claim outside of California, or require the employee to waive his or her protections under California law. Specifically, this bill: SB 1241 Page 3 1)Prohibits an employer from requiring an employee, who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would do either of the following: a) Require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California. b) Deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California. 2)Provides that any contract that violates 1) is voidable by the employee. If rendered void at the request of the employee, the matter shall be adjudicated in California and California law shall govern the dispute. 3)Allows a court to award an employee who is enforcing his or her rights under this act reasonable attorney's fees, in addition to other remedies available. 4)Provides that this act does not apply to a contract with an employee who is in fact individually represented by legal counsel in negotiating the terms of an agreement to designate either the venue or forum in which a controversy arising from the employment contract may be adjudicated or the choice of law to be applied. 5)Provides that this act does not apply to a contract for which the employee was represented by a talent agency, as defined. 6)Defines adjudication under this act to include litigation and arbitration. EXISTING LAW: SB 1241 Page 4 1)Provides that if the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or the unconscionable clause. (Civil Code Section 1670.5.) 2)Holds that a mandatory forum selection clause is generally given effect unless enforcement would be unreasonable or unfair. (Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, L.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 141, 147.) 3)Holds that California courts will refuse to defer to the selected forum if to do so would substantially diminish the rights of California residents in a way that violates California's public policy. (America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1, 12.) 4)Holds that the party opposing the enforcement of a forum selection clause ordinarily bears the substantial burden of proving why it should not be enforced. (Global Packaging, Inc. v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1623, 1633.) FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal. COMMENTS: Justice Brennan once said that, "courts are the central dispute-setting institutions of our society. They are bound to do equal justice under the law, to rich and poor alike." It comes as no surprise then that the phrase, "Equal Justice Under Law," is engraved above the entrance to our nation's highest court. And so it seems, we put a great deal of faith in our courts - but would we expect any less? We anticipate our courts to apply the law in a fair, neutral, and SB 1241 Page 5 open manner. We hold judges to high standards, and ask that they avoid even the appearance of impropriety. We count on our judiciary to advance the law, issue orders, and render written opinions. And yet, we acknowledge that our system isn't perfect and that despite their best efforts, courts sometimes get it wrong. Acknowledging the imperfection of our justice system is undoubtedly one reason why it has safeguards. We remember that decisions of courts are reviewed by appellate courts and indeed, reviewed by our elected branches. In order to facilitate the right to appeal, we provide a record of the proceedings, in criminal matters at least. And so, when our families, friends, and neighbors are injured, wronged, or have a dispute, we rely upon that faith that our courts-the institution we trust upon to promote fairness-will deliver equal justice under the law. As this Committee is well-aware, arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution held outside of courts where a third-party (rather than a judge) makes a binding (and rarely appealable) award. Because most arbitration is created by entering into a contract (usually a contract that is adhesive or take-it-or-leave-it), the arbitration agreement will lay-out the procedures that will be followed during the arbitration hearing. For example, the terms of the arbitration agreement may stipulate that the award need not be written or justified (unlike in court), and that the entire process be kept in secret (rather than in public view). Arbitrators do not need to be lawyers, nor do they need to be trained in the law. Arbitrators who issue favorable awards to a particular company can be repeatedly-hired by that same company to serve as the arbitration-neutral without ever notifying the public about that employment-history. It's easy to predict the calls if you can hire the umpire. Last year, the New York Times issued a three-part series titled, "Beware the Fine Print" - a special report examining how arbitration clauses buried in contracts deprives Americans of their fundamental constitutional rights: SB 1241 Page 6 Over the last 10 years, thousands of businesses across the country - from big corporations to storefront shops - have used arbitration to create an alternate system of justice. There, rules tend to favor businesses, and judges and juries have been replaced by arbitrators who commonly consider the companies their clients. The change has been swift and virtually unnoticed, even though it has meant that tens of millions of Americans have lost a fundamental right: their day in court. (Silver-Greenberg & Corkery, In Arbitration, a Privatization of the Justice System, N.Y. Times (Nov. 1, 2015).) In fact, some legal scholars have stated that, arbitration "amounts to the whole-scale privatization of the justice system." (Ibid.) In an effort to protect consumers and workers, this Legislature has worked on legislation aimed at leveling the playing field, a turf that has been used by corporate interests to evade public scrutiny, and even, avoid the law. This is because arbitrators do not need to be trained in the law, or even apply the law, or render a decision consistent with the evidence presented to them. What evidence is presented may, in fact, be incomplete because parties in arbitration have no legal right to obtain evidence in support of their claims or defenses, or the claims or defenses of the other party, contrary to the longstanding discovery practice in public courts. Advocates continue to debate about the benefits and harms of mandatory-arbitration. Proponents of arbitration say that arbitration produces quicker results and reduces litigation costs. Opponents argue that arbitration harms consumers and workers because arbitration proceedings render unfair awards. A Return of the Lochner Era? In 1897, the State of New York enacted a labor law intended to protect its bakers: no employee may work in a bakery establishment for more than sixty hours in any one week. That law-which seems reasonable when considering SB 1241 Page 7 today's standards-was infamously struck down by the Supreme Court in 1905. The Court held that the state law interfered with a person's freedom to contract, rejecting New York's argument that the law was intended to promote the public's welfare. (Lochner v. New York (1905) 198 U.S. 45, 52.) Some legal commentators have repudiated the Lochner decision as a relic, even a stain in American jurisprudence. Indeed, some scholars have stated that "[a]side from Dred Scott itself, Lochner?is now considered the most discredited decision in Supreme Court history." (Schwartz, A History of the Supreme Court, (1995).) While scholars continue to debate the Lochner decision, one thing seems clear: the Lochner era prioritized economic liberty over the state's interests in protecting the general welfare of its residents. Although one might expect that the principles behind Lochner are long behind us, sometimes, Lochner rears its ugly head. Recently, businesses and employers have been requiring consumers and employees to agree to contractual provisions that seek to evade California law. For instance, a consumer might be required to sign a choice of venue provision, which would require the consumer to go to another state to resolve a legal dispute. In other contracts, an employee might be obligated to sign a choice of law provision, which would require the employee to accept the laws of another state to govern a legal dispute. In a Lochner era, one might argue that these provisions were unproblematic; after all, the employee "voluntarily" agreed to the terms of these contracts - no matter how unfair or unreasonable. Indeed, it would seem that no matter how beneficial the social regulation, the view under Lochner is that consumers and employees who enter into contracts do so at their own peril. But we proudly know that California is no home of Lochner. The problem that this bill seeks to fix: According to author of the bill, an increasing number of businesses and employers are imposing contractual provisions on Californians in order to evade California law. These contractual provisions allow businesses and employers to pick laws or venues of another state (and even another country) that are favorable to the business SB 1241 Page 8 interest to govern a legal dispute if one should arise. Accordingly, Californians who are forced to agree to these contractual terms must travel to other states or countries in order to litigate or arbitrate legal claims. Given the expense and burden of going to another forum, this ultimately means that an employee is unlikely to vindicate his or her legal rights. This bill has been narrowed and as proposed to be amended, applies its protections to California employees (rather than California consumers). This bill prohibits an employer from requiring an employee (who primarily resides and works in California)-as a condition of employment-to agree to a provision that would either require the employee to adjudicate a legal claim outside of California, or deprive the employee of the protections of California law. If an employee is subject to such a contractual provision during the course of employment, this bill would allow an employee to void the provision. If voided, the legal matter would be adjudicated in California under California law. This bill applies to contracts commencing after January 1, 2017, and allows a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to an employee who is enforcing his or her rights under this bill. Author's statement: In support of the bill, the author writes: Senate Bill 1241 focuses in on two of the worst kinds of clauses that can appear in an employment contract: (1) Choice of venue clauses that require a worker to go to an arbitration or to a court in an entirely different state, and; (2) Choice of law clauses that intentionally pick what state's law governs the arbitration - thus deciding what the rules are - to disadvantage the worker. A California employee should never be forced to travel to a different state to exercise her right to litigate or obligation to arbitrate a claim. If you're employing Californians who live in California, you should not be able to force all dispute resolution to take SB 1241 Page 9 place in Florida or under the laws of Delaware. Just the cost of travel alone prevents California consumers who have been harmed by an illegal practice from seeking compensation. SB 1241 ensures that employees are able to arbitrate in California. California has a history of protecting against potentially one-sided contractual arrangements. It should come as no surprise that California has previously enacted laws restricting the use of choice of law and forum selection clauses in contracts. (See AB 2781 (Leno, Ch. 797, Stats. 2006) child support collection choice of law agreements; AB 268 (Wayne, Ch. 624, Stats. 2001) sale of structured settlements received in tort claims choice of law and forum selection agreements; SB 586 (Sher, Ch. 194, Stats. 1997) Uniform Interstate Family Support Act choice of law; AB 1051 (Eastin, Ch. 582, Stats. 1991) construction subcontracts cannot be litigated or arbitrated outside this state).) Indeed, many California courts recognize this strong public policy. For instance, "California courts will refuse to defer to the selected forum if to do so would substantially diminish the rights of California residents in a way that violates our state's public policy." (America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1, 12.) This is because "[o]ur law favors forum selection agreements only so long as they are procured freely and voluntarily, 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." (Ibid.) Accordingly, it appears that this bill is consistent with the Legislature's previous efforts in protecting Californians from potentially unfair and unreasonable contracts. This bill is consistent with, but not duplicative of, existing law. Observers correctly note that California courts have the authority to refuse to enforce one-sided choice of venue and choice of law provisions. For example, a court may invalidate a SB 1241 Page 10 provision if the inconvenience of the forum is so grave that it effectively deprives litigants of their day in court. (The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (1972) 407 U.S. 1, 17.) Additionally, a court may refuse to enforce a choice of law if another state's laws fundamentally conflict with the public policy of California. (Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 906, 916; see Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 459, 465.) While courts have the authority to strike down one-sided contracts, there is a strong presumption that forum selection clauses are valid and enforceable unless the contesting party meets the "heavy burden" of proving that enforcing the clause would be unreasonable under the circumstances of a case. (Bancomer v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1457.) In order words, a consumer or an employee seeking to invalidate an unfair forum selection clause must show that adjudicating in another state, or following the laws of another forum would be unreasonable. The burden seems unrealistic. The author reasonably argues that many employees do not have the means to invalidate one-sided contractual agreements, let alone travel to other forums to adjudicate legal claims. Thus, it seems likely that without this bill, many one-sided clauses in employment contracts will remain in place. Accordingly, this bill does not appear to be duplicative of existing law. Adjudication includes both litigation and arbitration. At issue is whether this bill somehow implicates the Federal Arbitration Act: it does not appear so. Since this bill applies to all contracts involving employees, this bill does not appear to violate the Federal Arbitration Act. Additionally, if an employee is subject to a choice of law or choice of venue provision that requires adjudication outside of California, or deprives the Californian of protection under California law during the course of employment, this bill allows the employee to void the provision and adjudicate the legal claim in California. This also means that if an employee would otherwise have been forced to travel outside of California to arbitrate a claim, the employee could void the provision, and the matter SB 1241 Page 11 would be similarly arbitrated in California under the State's laws. This bill does not apply to employees who are represented by counsel or a talent agency. Since this bill is aimed at protecting employees who may not have sufficient bargaining power throughout the employment relationship, this bill exempts employment contracts where an employee is individually represented by legal counsel in negotiating terms of an agreement that designate venue or the choice of law, or by a talent agency. These exemptions, intended to alleviate concerns raised by the business community, are consistent with the policy goal of this bill: Californians should be bound by potentially one-sided terms only if the Californian knowingly and voluntarily agrees to such terms. Similarly, this bill allows California employees the choice to adjudicate their claims outside of California. Although California law provides broad protections for California employees, there may be an instance where an employee wants to adjudicate a claim outside of California or to have another forum's laws govern the dispute. To that end, this bill allows an employee subject to such a contractual provision the option of voiding those outside-of-California clauses. By making these provisions voidable (rather than void), this bill ensures that employees are not coerced into signing away their rights under California law. The bill does not appear to violate the Contract Clause Violation. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Contract Clause, provides that, "[n]o state shall?pass any?law impairing the obligation of contracts." (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10.) But it is well-established that the Contract Clause does not prevent the government from regulating the terms of future contracts. Given that this bill only applies prospectively to contracts entered into after SB 1241 Page 12 January 1, 2017, the Contract Clause is not implicated. Prior Vetoed Bills: The prohibitions of this bill limiting choice of law or choice of forum provisions in employment contracts is similar to a prior bill, AB 267 (Swanson, 2011), which was vetoed by Governor Brown. In vetoing AB 267, Governor Brown stated: This measure would prohibit employment contracts that require California employees to agree to the use of legal forums and laws of other states. Current law prohibits California employees from being subjected to laws or forums that substantially diminish their rights under our laws and I have not seen convincing evidence that these protections are insufficient to protect employees in California. Finally, I would note that imposing this burden could deter out of state companies from hiring Californians - something we can ill afford at this time of high unemployment.. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support (to the prior version of this bill) California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union California Conference of Machinists SB 1241 Page 13 California Dispute Resolution Council California Employment Lawyers Association California Teamsters Public Affairs Council Consumer Attorneys of California Consumer Federation of California Engineers and Scientists of California, IFPTE Local 20, AFL-CIO International Longshore and Warehouse Union Professional and Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21, AFL-CIO SAG-AFTRA, AFL-CIO Small Business California UNITE-HERE, AFL-CIO Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO Opposition (to the prior version of this bill) SB 1241 Page 14 California Chamber of Commerce American Insurance Association California Bankers Association California Farm Bureau Federation California Manufacturers and Technology Association Civil Justice Association of California Dish Network Feld Entertainment, Inc. Motion Picture Association of America Analysis Prepared by:Eric Dang / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 SB 1241 Page 15