Yes, yes. The law applies to “employment contracts entered into, amended or renewed on January 1, 2020 or after January 1, 2020.” (Added highlight.) This means that existing agreements should remain applicable under existing legislation. Remarkable, as designed, the statue does not define “extended”; We therefore expect to meet the challenges of an arbitration agreement that will be extended from 2019 to January 1, 2020. AB 1715, if the governor signed it, would probably be repressed under the previous FAA and United States Supreme Court. As noted above, the FAA anticipates all state laws inconsistent with the FAA`s goal of promoting arbitration. In Doctor`s Associates, Inc. Casarotto and Circuit City Stores v. Adams, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state courts do not invalidate arbitration agreements under state laws that apply only to the provisions of arbitration. AB 1715 is certainly a state law that applies only to arbitration agreements (not contracts in general) and therefore is unlikely to survive a legal challenge. The implementation of a valid arbitration agreement requires two factors to be taken into account. First, the agreement must define the types of rights that can be submitted to arbitration. Second, the agreement must be linked to California`s contractual laws on the formation of a valid and enforceable agreement.

No, as long as the law is not anticipated by the FAA. Pending the adoption of AB 51, an employer could require a mandatory reconciliation of legal rights prior to litigation for all persons who have accepted employment. Under AB 51, an employer cannot make arbitration as a condition of employment. Any employer who does so may face rights of retaliation or discrimination under the law. In the fall of 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 51. Legislation prevents companies and organizations from resolving most types of workplace rights through arbitration procedures. The bill is harsh – it even involves the possibility of criminal sanctions for employers who have broken this law. In a subsequent decision, Little v. Auto Stiegler, the Supreme Court extended Armendariz`s common law claims for unlawful dismissal in violation of public order. It is not certain that an agreement to arbitrate other common law rights (for example). B violation of the tacit contract) must comply with Armendariz`s requirements.

Mr. Armendariz also left other issues, such as. B this constitutes a “reasonable” discovery of the costs that an employer may share with the worker and may reserve certain rights to the judgment of a court, such as. B trade secrets breaches. Several appelal courts issued opinions after Armendariz and answered some of these questions.