(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
Belkorp AG, LLC v. Venture Prods., Inc. (N.D. Ohio 2026).
· cites it 5× “He stated that he would exercise his right to void the forum-selection clause under California Labor Code section 925, which allows certain contracts with California employees to be “voidable by the employee” under specific conditions.”
Go (N.D. Cal. 2026).
· cites it 2× “Code § 925 by requiring the application of New York law, subjects 16 employees to costs that are unique to arbitration, limits statutory attorney’s fees or costs, and waives 17 rights to recover statutory costs, seek public relief, and bring representative PAGA claims (because…”
Patel v. SAP Am., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 4× “DISCUSSION 3 The parties’ dispute regarding transfer turns on whether the 2022 GIP forum selection 4 clause violates California Labor Code § 925 and is, as Plaintiff argues, “unreasonable” and 5 contravenes the public interest.”
Patel v. SAP Am., Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2025).
· cites it 4× “DISCUSSION 3 The parties’ dispute regarding transfer turns on whether the 2022 GIP forum selection 4 clause violates California Labor Code § 925 and is, as Plaintiff argues, “unreasonable” and 5 contravenes the public interest.”
Johnathon Ervin v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC (C.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 3× “California Labor Code Section 925 14 Similarly, the Court does not reach Ervin’s challenge that the DSP Agreement is 15 unenforceable under California Labor Code section 925.”
Kashmolah (N.D. Ohio 2025).
· cites it 3× “Kashmolah also argues he declared the Ohio choice of law provision “void” under California Labor Code § 925. (Doc. 21 at 242-43.”
Arden Reneau v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. (C.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 2× “WarnerMedia Direct 23 24 1 California Labor Code § 925(a) provides that an employer “shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a 25 provision that would” require the adjudication of a claim arising in…”
Arden Reneau v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. (E.D. Pa. 2025).
· cites it 2× “WarnerMedia Direct 23 24 1 California Labor Code § 925(a) provides that an employer “shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a 25 provision that would” require the adjudication of a claim arising in…”
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Traffic Tech, Inc. (8th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Code § 1717 (a) (providing in an action arising under a contract with attorney fee-shifting provisions that any prevailing party in the action “shall be entitled to reasonable attorney[] fees”); Cal. Labor Code § 925 (a)(2) and (c) (providing that “a court may award” attorney…”
— Cal. Labor Code § 925(a) — 7 cases
— Cal. Labor Code § 925(b) — 2 cases
Arden Reneau v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. (C.D. Cal. 2025).
“WarnerMedia Direct 23 24 1 California Labor Code § 925(a) provides that an employer “shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a 25 provision that would” require the adjudication of a claim arising in…”
Arden Reneau v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. (E.D. Pa. 2025).
“WarnerMedia Direct 23 24 1 California Labor Code § 925(a) provides that an employer “shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a 25 provision that would” require the adjudication of a claim arising in…”
— 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.