Nixon Peabody LLP

  • People
  • Capabilities
  • Insights
  • About

Trending Topics

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni

    Practices

    View All

    • Affordable Housing
    • Community Development Finance
    • Corporate & Finance
    • Cybersecurity & Privacy
    • Environmental
    • Franchising & Distribution
    • Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
    • Healthcare
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Services
    • Labor & Employment
    • Litigation
    • Private Wealth & Advisory
    • Project Finance
    • Public Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Regulatory & Government Relations

    Industries

    View All

    • Cannabis
    • Consumer
    • Energy
    • Entertainment
    • Financial Services
    • Healthcare
    • Higher Education
    • Infrastructure
    • Manufacturing
    • Non Profit
    • Real Estate
    • Technology

    Value-Added Services

    View All

    • Alternative Fee Arrangements

      Developing innovative pricing structures and alternative fee agreement models that deliver additional value for our clients.

    • Continuing Education

      Advancing professional knowledge and offering credits for attorneys, staff and other professionals.

    • Crisis Advisory

      Helping clients respond correctly when a crisis occurs.

    • DEI Strategic Services

      Providing our clients with legal, strategic, and practical advice to make transformational changes in their organizations.

    • eDiscovery

      Leveraging law and technology to deliver sound solutions.

    • Global Services

      Delivering seamless service through partnerships across the globe.

    • Innovation

      Leveraging leading-edge technology to guide change and create seamless, collaborative experiences for clients and attorneys.

    • IPED

      Industry-leading conferences focused on affordable housing, tax credits, and more.

    • Legal Project Management

      Providing actionable information to support strategic decision-making.

    • Legally Green

      Teaming with clients to advance sustainable projects, mitigate the effects of climate change, and protect our planet.

    • Nixon Peabody Trust Company

      Offering a range of investment management and fiduciary services.

    • NP Capital Connector

      Bringing together companies and investors for tomorrow’s new deals.

    • NP Second Opinion

      Offering fresh insights on cases that are delayed, over budget, or off-target from the desired resolution.

    • NP Trial

      Courtroom-ready lawyers who can resolve disputes early on clients’ terms or prevail at trial before a judge or jury.

    • Social Impact

      Creating positive impact in our communities through increasing equity, access, and opportunity.

    1. Home
    2. Insights
    3. Alerts
    4. Ninth Circuit holds California’s attempted ban of mandatory arbitration preempted by the FAAAlerts

    Alert / Labor & Employment

    Ninth Circuit holds California’s attempted ban of mandatory arbitration preempted by the FAA

    Feb 22, 2023

    Share

    By Philip Lamborn and Robert Pepple

    Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta (Bonta II) is welcome news for employers who wish to enter into arbitration agreements with their employees.

    What’s the impact?

    • California employers can now require their workers to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.
    • California could attempt to keep AB 51 alive by requesting the full Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

    In 2019 the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), which prohibited employers from requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. But last week, a Ninth Circuit panel determined that AB 51 failed to comply with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) mandate that arbitration agreements be treated equally with other contracts, opening the door for employers to require employees to sign arbitration agreements. Here’s what happened:

    Procedural history of AB 51 and first Ninth Circuit opinion (Bonta I)

    On December 9, 2019, a collection of trade associations and business groups (collectively, the Chamber of Commerce) sued for declaratory relief and a permanent injunction prohibiting California officials from enforcing AB 51, and a temporary restraining order, due to FAA preemption. The district court granted the motion for a temporary restraining order and granted the motion for a preliminary injunction. California appealed both rulings.

    In September 2021, the Ninth Circuit upheld the crux of the law (i.e., prohibition on mandatory arbitration agreements), but struck down the correlative (misdemeanor) criminal penalties for the same conduct.

    AB 51 specifically prohibited employers from the attempt to obtain a mandatory arbitration because a direct assault on arbitration agreements would have been dead on arrival due to federal preemption by the FAA. The California Legislature was open about their attempt to “successfully navigate[] around” United States Supreme Court FAA preemption precedent by regulating the attempt to enter into arbitration agreements, rather than the arbitration agreements themselves.

    The strange consequence was that if an employer successfully obtained such an agreement, it was enforceable under the FAA (see Cal. Lab. Code § 432.6(f)), but if that attempt failed, the employer was in violation of the law. As explained in the vigorous dissent by Judge Ikuta in Bonta (I):

    This tortuous ruling is analogous to holding that a statute can make it unlawful for a dealer to attempt to sell illegal drugs, but if the dealer succeeds in completing the drug transaction, the dealer cannot be prosecuted. Needless to say, such a bizarre approach does not apply to any other contracts in California. As such, it is preempted by the FAA for disfavoring arbitration contracts and obstructing the purpose and objectives of the FAA.

    The decision was short-lived, however, as the Ninth Circuit withdrew it in the wake of the United Stated Supreme Court decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana.

    The second Ninth Circuit opinion (Bonta II)

    On February 15, 2023, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that AB 51 sufficiently interfered with the objectives of the FAA to be preempted by it. In a straight-forward opinion, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that AB 51’s criminal and civil penalties “would seem to have the intended effect of deterring formation of arbitration agreements,” which runs afoul of the FAA’s mandate that arbitration agreements be placed on “equal footing with all other contracts.”

    Bonta II is welcome news for California employers who face one of the most litigious climates in the country, especially with respect to wage and hour class actions. Employers may again require employees, as a condition of employment, to enter into arbitration agreements, which can include class and representative action waivers. Such provisions can require employees to adjudicate disputes individually in arbitration and not on a class, collective, or representative basis (though PAGA representative action waivers are under threat in the pendency of the much-anticipated decision of the California Supreme Court decision in Adolf v. Uber).

    What employers should do

    The State of California may request a rehearing in front of the full Ninth Circuit, or it may appeal the ruling to the United States Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court has a long history of upholding decisions like Bonta II (i.e., decisions that underscore the strength of the FAA’s preemption doctrine and strike down state laws that interfere with the FAA’s objectives. Either way, California employers should not rest easy in the current state of the law, because as Judge Ikuta also wrote in her dissent in Bonta (I):

    Like a classic clown bop bag, no matter how many times California is smacked down for violating the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the state bounces back with even more creative methods to sidestep the FAA.

    For now, however, the state of the law has returned to a landscape that permits California employers to require arbitration agreements as conditions of employment. Given the utility of such agreements in streamlining dispute resolution, reducing costs, and preserving one-on-one due-process protections, California employers should consider whether mandatory arbitration agreements are a good fit for their workforces.

    Nixon Peabody’s lawyers have extensive experience in drafting and enforcing mandatory arbitration agreements. If you have questions about your arbitration agreement in the wake of Bonta II, or any other employment matter, do not hesitate to contact your Nixon Peabody attorney or the authors of this alert.

    Practices

    Labor & EmploymentCalifornia Labor & EmploymentLabor & Employment LitigationWorkplace: Policies, Procedures & Training

    Insights And Happenings

    • Alert

      New Hampshire's innovative take on paid family medical leave: What employers should know?

      March 2, 2023
    • Alert

      U.S. Supreme Court in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt clarifies "salary basis" test for HCEs paid on daily basis

      Feb 28, 2023
    • Alert

      Strategies for severance agreements after NLRB’s decision in McLaren Macomb

      Feb 27, 2023

    Subscribe to stay informed of the latest legal news, alerts, and business trends.Subscribe

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    • © 2023 Nixon Peabody. All rights reserved
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Statement of Client Rights
    • Supplier Diversity Program
    • Nixon Peabody International LLC
    • PAL