(a)An employer shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would do either of the following:
(1)Require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California.
(2)Deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California.
(b)Any provision of a contract that violates subdivision (a) is voidable by the employee, and if a provision is rendered void at the request of the employee, the matter shall be
adjudicated in California and California law shall govern the dispute.
(c)In addition to injunctive relief and any other remedies available, a court may award an employee who is enforcing his or her rights under this section reasonable attorney’s fees.
(d)For purposes of this section, adjudication includes litigation and arbitration.
(e)This section shall not apply to a contract with an employee who is in fact individually represented by legal counsel in negotiating the terms of an agreement to designate either the venue or forum in which a controversy arising from the employment contract may be adjudicated or the choice of law to be applied.
(f)This section shall apply to a contract entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1,
2017.
Notes of Decisions
Oxford Global Res., LLC v. Hernandez, 106 N.E.3d 556 (Mass. 2018).
· cites it 4× “First, the California Legislature recently enacted Cal. Lab. Code § 925 , which prohibits employers from requiring employees who primarily reside and work in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision in an employment agreement that would require the…”
Fleming v. Matco Tools Corp., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
· cites it 6× “5 is dispositive of this motion, I need not address the parties' arguments related to California Labor Code § 925. Additionally, because Fleming's proposed sur-reply is dedicated to argument related to California Labor Code § 925, it is not needed and Fleming's Objection to…”
Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 28 F.4th 956 (9th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 3× “The panel held that the state law applicable here, Cal. Labor Code § 925 (b), which grants employees the option to void a forum-selection clause under a limited set of circumstances, determined the question of whether Waber’s contract contained a valid forum-selection clause.”
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Traffic Tech, Inc., 60 F.4th 1144 (8th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Cal. Lab. Code § 925 (a)–(b). Of the five former employees, only Peacock began working for Traffic Tech and signed his employment contract after California’s anti- waiver statute took effect.”
Matter of Dentons US LLP v. Zhang, 2022 NY Slip Op 07498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022).
“irm three arbitral awards rendered by an emergency arbitrator under the authority of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR), and denied respondent's cross motion to stay or dismiss this proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with costs, without…”
Nuvasive, Inc. v. Patrick Miles (Del. Ch. 2018).
· cites it 7× “It has recognized that in the limited subset of cases where the inequality of bargaining strength of the 1 Cal. Lab. Code § 925 (e). 2 parties to an employment contract is buffered by the employee being represented by independent counsel, and where counsel participated in…”
Joubert v. Lienhard (N.D. Cal. 2020).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiff responds that the choice- 5 of-law provision is invalid under California Labor Code section 925. Opp’n at 10–13.”
Ryze Claim Solutions LLC v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “The trial court observed that forum selection clauses will not be enforced when contrary to California public policy and found that enforcing the forum selection clause would “go against the state’s public policy expressed in at least two statutes,” specifically citing Labor…”
LGCY Power v. Super. Ct. (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 5× “-ooOoo- California Labor Code section 925 went into effect on January 1, 2017, and provides that employers cannot force an employee who resides and works primarily in California to agree, as a condition of employment, to: (1) litigate a claim arising in California in a forum…”
Zhang v. Super. Ct. (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 5× “) The court concluded: “[The] Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the scope of the arbitration agreement; the application of California Labor Code Section 925; and the application [of]California Labor Code Section 229 may well render the claims unarbitrable.”
LaCasse v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc. CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 5× “he reply brief also argued that: (1) LaCasse accepted the terms of the Associate Agreement by her conduct; (2) the Associate Agreement incorporated the USANA Policies by reference; (3) the forum selection clauses in the Associate Agreement and USANA Policies were mandatory; (4)…”
— Cal. Labor Code § 925(a) — 7 cases
— Cal. Labor Code § 925(b) — 2 cases
— Cal. Labor Code § 925(c) — 1 case
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.