(a)A person shall not, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit, require any applicant for employment or any employee to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) or this code, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or a complaint with, or otherwise notify, any state
agency, other public prosecutor, law enforcement agency, or any court or other governmental entity of any alleged violation.
(b)An employer shall not threaten, retaliate or discriminate
against, or terminate any applicant for employment or any employee because of the refusal to consent to the waiver of any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or this code, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or a complaint with, or otherwise notify, any state agency, other public prosecutor, law enforcement agency, or any court or other governmental entity of any alleged violation.
(c)For purposes of this section, an agreement that requires an employee to opt out of a waiver or take any affirmative action in order to preserve their rights is deemed a condition of employment.
(d)In addition to injunctive relief and any other remedies available, a court may award a prevailing plaintiff enforcing
their rights under this section reasonable attorney’s fees.
(e)This section does not apply to a person registered with a self-regulatory organization as defined by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 78c) or regulations adopted under that act pertaining to any requirement of a self-regulatory organization that a person arbitrate disputes that arise between the person and their employer or any other person as specified by the rules of the self-regulatory organization.
(f)Nothing in this section
is intended to invalidate a written arbitration agreement that is otherwise enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq.).
(g)This section does not apply to postdispute settlement agreements or negotiated severance agreements.
(h)This section applies to contracts for employment entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2020.
(i)The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Notes of Decisions
Chamber of Com. of the US v. Rob Bonta, 13 F.4th 766 (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 18× “BONTA The panel held that California Labor Code § 432.6 neither conflicted with the language of § 2 of the FAA nor created a contract defense by which executed arbitration agreements could be invalidated or not enforced.”
Chamber of Com. of the US v. Rob Bonta, 62 F.4th 473 (9th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 9× “But to avoid preemption by the FAA, the California legislature included a provision ensuring that if the parties did enter into an arbitration agreement, it would be enforceable.”
Chamber of Com. of the USA v. Becerra (E.D. Cal. 2020).
· cites it 8× “23 Cal. Lab. Code § 432.6 . 24 The bill also adds Government Code section 12953, which reads: “It is an 25 unlawful employment practice for an employer to violate Section 432.”
Prell v. The Lobster CA2/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “Prell opposed the motion, contending the 2015 arbitration agreement was unenforceable, as the 2020 agreement superseded it; Labor Code section 432.6—which prevents an employer from conditioning employees’ employment on their waiver of any “ ‘right, forum, or procedure for a…”
Schwenk v. Bristol Farms CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “) Labor Code section 432.6, subdivision (c), includes in its definition of prohibited dealings any “agreement that requires an employee to opt out of a waiver or take any affirmative action in order to preserve their rights.”
Mena v. Muscolino Inventory Servs. CA2/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “) In connection with argument (1) above, Mena relies on Labor Code section 432.6. This provision does not apply because 8 Before reviewing the trial court’s rulings, we discuss the appealability of the May 19, 2022 order and the scope of our review.”
Holman v. Bath & Body Works, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2021).
· cites it 4× “” Cal. Lab. Code § 432.6 (a). Section (c) provides 19 that “[f]or purposes of this section, an agreement that requires an employee to opt out of a waiver 20 or take any affirmative action to preserve their rights is deemed a condition of employment.”
Harper v. Charter Commc'ns, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2021).
· cites it 3× “California Labor Code Section 432.6 12 7 Specifically, the court determined that (1) the Solution Channel review process was not one-sided, as Harper 13 contended, but rather its requirements applied equally to 14 employees and to Charter; (2) the agreement did not enable…”
Norma Orozco v. Gruma Corp. (E.D. Cal. 2021).
· cites it 3× “In Chamber of Commerce, the Ninth 2 Circuit held that the FAA does not preempt California Labor Code § 432.6 to the extent that 3 section prohibits employers from requiring “any applicant for employment or any employee to 4 waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of…”
Jules v. Andre Balazs Props. (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff’s Remaining Arguments Plaintiff also claims that the Arbitration Agreement is invalidated by California Labor Code § 432.6, which prohibits any employment agreement requiring employees to waive the protections of the California Fair Housing and Employment Act.”
Bahamonde v. Amazon.com Servs. LLC (N.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 3× “22 Plaintiffs assert their claims are exempt from arbitration under California Labor Code § 23 229 and California Labor Code § 432.”
Aguirre v. Aetna Resources, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Arbitration barred under California law 4 Plaintiff next argues that, “[u]nder California Labor Code § 432.6, employers no longer 5 are able to compel workers into arbitration for state discrimination claims or those brought under 6 the Labor Code.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 432.6(a) — 1 case
Chamber of Com. of the US v. Rob Bonta, 62 F.4th 473 (9th Cir. 2023).
“But to avoid preemption by the FAA, the California legislature included a provision ensuring that if the parties did enter into an arbitration agreement, it would be enforceable.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 432.6(h) — 1 case
Chamber of Com. of the US v. Rob Bonta, 62 F.4th 473 (9th Cir. 2023).
“But to avoid preemption by the FAA, the California legislature included a provision ensuring that if the parties did enter into an arbitration agreement, it would be enforceable.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 432.6(i) — 1 case
Chamber of Com. of the US v. Rob Bonta, 62 F.4th 473 (9th Cir. 2023).
“But to avoid preemption by the FAA, the California legislature included a provision ensuring that if the parties did enter into an arbitration agreement, it would be enforceable.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.