California Senators Defy Federal Law by Making Employment-Based Arbitration Agreements Optional
2 min read
Sep 11, 2018
On August 22, 2018, California senators passed a bill that prevents employers from forcing employees to sign mandatory arbitration or nondisclosure agreements in order to secure and/or maintain employment. AB 3080 prevents retaliation against workers who choose not to sign mandatory arbitration agreements that would waive their right to pursue legal action under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act or the California Labor Code in courts. The intent of the bill is not to outlaw arbitration agreements in their entirety, but to provide workers and job applicants with the option to choose the forum in which to air out their grievances. The proposed legislation will now move to the desk of Governor Brown for final approval.
That being said, AB 3080 will certainly be met with resistance due to its stark contrast to federal case law, which favors enforcement of arbitration agreements. Most recently, the Supreme Court in the decision Epic Systems v. Lewis held that businesses are not disregarding the National Labor Relations Act by requiring workers to sign class action waivers as part of a mandatory arbitration agreement. The ruling goes on to add that those type of agreements must be enforced according to their terms under the Federal Arbitration Act.
The dichotomy between the proposed bill and federal case law is certainly not lost on the California senators. After all, the Supremacy Clause within Article VI of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law is the “supreme law of the land.” However, the crafters of AB 3080 has made it clear that the purpose of the bill is to give workers and job applicants the choice to either voluntarily be bound by an employer’s arbitration agreement or not.
The legislation was birthed from the #MeToo movement to stop employers from limiting the ability of disclosure in situations where there is workplace sexual harassment or to prevent workers from participating in any harassment or discrimination investigation or proceeding. Only time will tell whether AB 3080, if enacted, will eliminate mandatory workplace arbitration agreements without being challenged on a federal level. In the meantime, employers should understand that, given the current political climate and U.S. Supreme Court makeup, there is a great chance that this bill may end up preempted.
Please contact Tricia Pride or your regular Hinshaw attorney with any questions.
Featured Insights

Hinshaw Alert
Apr 17, 2026
Q&A: How to Submit Your IEEPA Refund Claim as CAPE Portal Launches April 20, 2026

Webinar
Apr 29, 2026
When a Cyber Breach Hits: Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Compliance

Event
Apr 23, 2026
Driving Ahead: Insights from Industry Leaders Auto Finance Seminar

Press Release
Apr 17, 2026
André Sesler Elected to the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Law Center Association

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Bloomberg Law Recaps Panels Presented at Hinshaw's 25th Anniversary LMRM Conference

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Michael Dowell Discusses the Uncertain Impact of Growing Medicare Advantage Scrutiny

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Apr 9, 2026
6 Key Takeaways From the IAPP 2026 Global Summit for Privacy Compliance Professionals

In The News
Apr 9, 2026
Megan Lopp Mathias Discusses Future of DEI Employment Initiatives

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Apr 8, 2026
After Arbitration, Does a District Court Have Jurisdiction to Confirm or Vacate an FAA Award?



