Client Alerts & Insights
California Seeks to Protect Worker’s Right Not to Sign Arbitration or Nondisclosure Agreements
August 27, 2018
Authored By:
A California bill prompted by the #MeToo movement to prohibit employers from requiring workers to sign arbitration or nondisclosure agreements as a condition of employment is headed to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown for final approval.
The bill, known as AB 3080, does not prohibit arbitration and nondisclosure agreements across the board. Rather, it provides that employees, independent contractors, and applicants must enter into arbitration agreements voluntarily and that those who choose not to cannot be subject to retaliation or termination.
AB 3080 also would prevent employers from limiting the ability of workers to disclose instances of workplace sexual harassment or from participating in any harassment or discrimination investigation or proceeding. In other words, employers would no longer be able to impose confidentiality obligations on their employees or independent contractors with respect to claims of sexual harassment.
Although AB 3080 was intended to respond to sexual harassment claims, it would apply to all forms of discrimination, harassment, retaliation as well as wage and hour claims and any other claims brought under California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) or the California Labor Code.
Any violation of the law would be a misdemeanor.
Gov. Brown has until September 30 to sign or veto the bill. In 2015, he vetoed a bill that would have outright banned the use of mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.
Even if Gov. Brown does sign AB 3080, it is likely to be challenged in court by employers as unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly enforced.
We will continue to monitor the progress of AB 3080. Employers with California operations may want to begin reviewing their arbitration agreements and practices in light of these potential changes and be prepared to implement any new practices by January 1, when AB 3080 would go into effect if signed.
For more information on this topic, contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden | ebaisden@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4676
Rick Hepp | rhepp@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4657
Latest News
The Coming State-Law Litigation Wave of 2026-27: “Subscription Trap” Class Actions
The subscription economy keeps growing—and so does the wave of class-action litigation targeting it. While the FTC’s regulatory efforts have drawn headlines, private class actions under state laws pose an even greater exposure risk.
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.