Contrary to the arguments put forward by AB 51`s sponsors, it is unlikely that from `51 on, the FAA`s right of pre-emption escapes simply because the law does not directly invalidate arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court also found that the FAA anticipated « state rules that constitute an impediment to the achievement of the FAA`s objectives, » even if those rules do not directly nullify arbitration agreements (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.P. 333 (2011)). 5. Does AB 51 apply to arbitration agreements already in force? 6. Under AB 51, can an employer refuse to hire a candidate who chooses not to be subject to arbitration? Ms. Ochs works in Ogletree Deakins` San Francisco office, where she is a shareholder. She has nearly 20 years of experience as a civil procedure lawyer, with a focus on defending labour rights in federal and regional proceedings, as well as in appel tribunals and administrative authorities. A woman.
Ochs` experience includes successful defense of employers, both in jury trials and in arbitration proceedings. In addition to her active labour and labour law practice, Ms. Ochs has negotiated a number of unfair commercial disputes, including trade secrets. Ab 51`s sponsors therefore argue that the law is not contrary to the FAA, as it does not invalidate any arbitration agreement. Therefore, if from the age of 51 employers prohibit the requirement of binding arbitration agreements but do not invalidate them, what does AB 51 do in practice? Here again, there is a reservation: from the age of 51, it does not explain what it means to « renew » an agreement after 1 January 2020. This means that a plaintiff`s lawyer could argue that any attempt by an employer to impose an arbitration agreement entered into before january 1, 2020 is prohibited by law. Employers will have the next few months to assess this problem. On October 10, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a state law to prohibit employers from requiring workers to enter into certain types of arbitration agreements.
This new law creates considerable insecurity and anxiety among employers. But AB 51`s FAA-Carve-out may not be as simple as it initially seems. Whether this law is « intentional » to annul arbitration agreements, there is no doubt that the plaintiffs will rely on the fact that the arbitration agreements covered are ruthless and unenforceable on grounds of public policy, because this law makes them illegal. These arbitration agreements are particularly common in the construction sector, both in employment contracts and in construction contracts. .