Ninth Circuit Holds California’s Ban on Mandatory Arbitration Agreements is Preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act
Time 2 Minute Read
Ninth Circuit Holds California’s Ban on Mandatory Arbitration Agreements is Preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act

Last week, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision holding that California employers can require employees to enter into mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of their employment.  In the decision, Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 20-15291 (9th Cir., Feb. 15 2023), a three-judge panel reversed the Ninth Circuit’s own prior decision and found that Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), which sought to impose criminal and civil penalties on employers who require employees to enter into such agreements, is preempted by federal law.

California enacted AB 51 in 2019 to prohibit “forced arbitration” by criminalizing the act of requiring employees or job applicants to consent to arbitrate certain claims as a condition of employment.  But AB 51 criminalized only contract formation; an arbitration agreement executed in violation of AB 51 would remain enforceable.  As the panel noted, California had taken this approach to try to avoid conflict with Supreme Court precedent, which holds that a state rule that discriminates against arbitration is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  California’s approach led to what the panel described as an “oddity that an employer subject to criminal prosecution for requiring an employee to enter into an arbitration agreement could nevertheless enforce that agreement once it was executed.”

The Ninth Circuit’s decision comes as a reversal of its prior ruling in September 2021, which had found that the FAA did not preempt AB 51 to the extent that AB 51 sought to regulate employer conduct prior to executing an arbitration agreement.  However, the Ninth Circuit sua sponte withdrew its opinion in August 22, 2022, after the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, and granted a panel rehearing, which led to the new ruling last week.

You can read our prior posts about AB51 here. Although the State of California may further appeal the decision, either by requesting a rehearing from the Ninth Circuit en banc or by appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, this decision is welcome news for employers in California who want to take advantage of the benefits of arbitration.  At least for now, employers may continue to require employees and applicants to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.

  • Partner

    Emily co-chairs the firm’s labor and employment group and has a national practice focusing on complex employment and wage and hour litigation and advice. Emily is an accomplished trial lawyer who defends employers in complex ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

On April 9, 2025, a Florida appellate court addressed whether a football game spectator had to arbitrate her claims under the terms of a ticket she did not buy or possess.

Time 3 Minute Read

In an amicus brief filed before the Third Circuit, the EEOC has taken the position that claims of harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation fall within the scope of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFASASHA”).

Time 6 Minute Read

The legal path between employee arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and representative claims under the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) has been anything but smooth. A new (albeit unpublished and uncitable) case, Piran v. Yamaha Motor Corp., et al., No. G062198, 2024 WL 484845 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2024)(unpub.) (“Yamaha”), helps to illustrate the challenges and unanswered questions lingering in the wake of this rapidly-developing area of law.

Time 4 Minute Read

When there is a willful violation to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (”FCRA”) consumers can recover either actual damages sustained by the consumer or statutory damages of no less than $100 and not more than $1000. (Punitive damages and attorney fees also are available).  There has been a trend in the district courts examining whether plaintiffs must prove that they suffered actual damage in order to recover statutory damages. Since 2007 several Circuits have reviewed this argument and each has explained that the provision for statutory damages does not require a showing of “actual damages.” The Eleventh Circuit is the most recent to weigh in on this question in Santos v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., and agrees with its sister Circuits.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page