U.S. Chamber of Commerce Asks Ninth Circuit to Reconsider Ruling Upholding California’s Mandatory Employment Arbitration Ban

On October 20, 2021, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the lead plaintiff challenging AB 51, filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Bonta, No. 20-15291 (September 16, 2021), partially upholding AB 51.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Portions of California Law Prohibiting Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

In a split 2-1 decision that likely raises more questions than it answers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cast some doubt upon the ability of employers to implement mandatory arbitration agreements with their employees. In Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit upheld portions of California Labor Code section 432.6, which prohibits employers from making arbitration agreements a condition of employment and imposes significant criminal and civil sanctions for violations. The Ninth Circuit’s decision holds that arbitration agreements signed by parties remain enforceable (even if they violate section 432.6), while parties who refused to sign an arbitration agreement may still seek a remedy against the employer under the statute.

Commissioned California Employees Must Be Separately Compensated for Rest Periods

On February 28, 2017, the California Court of Appeal issued a significant decision in Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC (No. B269657). The decision, which was certified for publication, is the first ruling by a California appellate court requiring employers to separately compensate commissioned employees—as opposed to employees paid by piece rate—for rest periods.

California Supreme Court Issues Pro-Arbitration Agreement Decision

On March 28, 2016, the Supreme Court of California issued another ruling on the enforceability of arbitration agreements. In Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (S208345), the court considered the enforceability of an arbitration agreement authorizing the parties to seek provisional relief in a judicial action while still compelling the remainder of the dispute to arbitration. According to the court, the clause carving out provisional relief from the arbitration obligation “which does no more than restate existing law . . . does not render the agreement unconscionable.”  Moreover, the court reiterated that an arbitration agreement remains enforceable even when it only lists claims that would likely be brought by an employee and does not list claims that might be brought by an employer.