Los Angeles hospitality employers should be aware of an update regarding the Hotel Worker Training Ordinance. The City has released its list of Certified Public Housekeeping Training Organizations (PHTOs), and beginning December 1, 2025, covered hotels must provide paid public housekeeping training through one of these approved providers. Hotels should begin preparing now to ensure… Continue Reading
Articles Discussing California Labor Law.
NLRB Sues to Block California Bill Expanding PERB Responsibilities
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has filed a lawsuit against the state of California seeking to block a new law that would allow the California
Policy Week in Review – October 17, 2025
Policy Week in Review – October 17, 2025
NLRB Challenges California Over New Labor Law
tgelbman@littler.com Fri, 10/17/2025 – 13:03
Overlapping Jurisdictions: California Enacts Law Allowing State to Resolve Labor Disputes When NLRB Cannot
California has joined New York in enacting a law to allow the state to regulate private sector labor disputes when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is unable to act or declines to do so. Notably, the California law empowers the state public labor agency to certify private sector union
Assembly Bill 288: Expanded Worker Rights and PERB’s New Authority
California’s labor landscape is changing with the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 288, which expands both worker rights and the authority of the state’s
Assembly Bill 1340: California Gives Gig Drivers the Right to Organize
On October 3, 2025, California’s Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1340 which establishes the Transportation Network Company Drivers Labor Relations Act
When Boards Collide: PERB vs. NLRB and the Compliance Clash
When Boards Collide: PERB vs. NLRB and the Compliance Clash
Unless you’ve been skipping the news lately, it’s no surprise that California and the federal administration don’t see eye to eye on many policies, let alone labor relations. Cue AB288 – a bill just passed by the legislature that allows
Unconscionable Employment Terms In Onboarding Documents Can Void Arbitration Agreements
By: Unconscionable Employment Terms In Onboarding Documents Can Void Arbitration Agreements
On June 13, 2025, a California Court of Appeal struck down an arbitration agreement because of unconscionable terms entered by the parties in a separate employment agreement, governing different dispute resolution fora and procedures that were more favorable to the employer. In Silva v. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., the Court held that the employment agreement and arbitration agreement (which did not have an integration clause) signed simultaneously as part of the hiring process must be read together, and that unconscionable—or, in other words, unfair—terms can render the arbitration agreement unenforceable.
In Silva, several employees brought class and representative claims against Cross Country Healthcare based on alleged California Labor Code violations. The employer moved to compel arbitration, asserting that the Arbitration Agreement, signed by the employees prior to employment, included a class action waiver clause and required arbitration of all claims between the employees and the employer on an individual basis.
The trial court denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that because the Arbitration Agreement and Employment Agreement were executed on the same day as part of the employee’s hiring and both dealt with how disputes between the employer and employee would be resolved, they must be read together. Moreover, the trial court determined that because the Employment Agreement contained unconscionable terms that favored the employer (allowing the employer to seek injunctions in court for the type of claims the employer would most likely pursue), the arbitration agreement requiring the employee to pursue claims only in arbitration rendered the arbitration agreement unconscionable.
On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s findings.
The Court of Appeal found that the two agreements created a one-sided framework favoring the employer for two reasons: (1) the agreements required arbitration of claims more likely to be brought by employees (the weaker party), but exempted from arbitration claims more likely to be brought by the employer (the stronger party); (2) the Employment Agreement included terms that have repeatedly been found to be unconscionable, requiring the employees to agree (without similar concessions in the employees’ favor) that:
- The confidentiality, non-compete, and non-solicitation terms are lawful
- Any breach of those terms will cause irreparable harm to the employer
- The employer is entitled to injunctive relief
- The employer could obtain injunctive relief without posting bond, which is usually required.
Finally, since the agreements created an entire arbitration scheme that is unfairly one-sided as to highly favor the employer, the court found that the trial court properly used its discretion in rendering the entire Arbitration Agreement unenforceable, rather than rewrite the agreements to negate the unconscionable terms.
Takeaways for Employers
The Silva decision rejected the employer’s attempt to sidestep longstanding California precedent by having employees sign two agreements to get the benefit of arbitration that would be otherwise unconscionable under a single agreement.
Employers should be advised to review all documents executed in the onboarding process and revise any terms that may be viewed as unconscionable when read in conjunction with any mandatory arbitration agreements.
If you have any questions about this decision or how it may affect your new-hire onboarding agreements, arbitration agreements, or litigation strategies, please contact your favorite CDF attorney. To stay up to date, be sure to subscribe to CDF’s California Labor & Employment Blog.
*Special thanks to CDF law clerk Sara Anderson for her research and contributions to this article.
New Notice Published to Comply with Labor Code Section 1102.8
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB 2299), the Labor Commissioner was required to develop a model list of employee rights and responsibilities under existing
Captive Audience Meetings Now Banned By State Law in California
By: Captive Audience Meetings Now Banned By State Law in California
Last Friday, Governor Newsom signed SB 399 – The California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act into law.
SB 399, which will take effect on January 1, 2025, prohibits private and public employers in California from subjecting, or threatening
California Governor Newsom Signs Law To Curtail Employer Mandatory Meetings With Employees During Union Organizing
Governor Newsom has officially signed Senate Bill (SB) 399 into law, which enacts the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act (Act) to
California Legislature Sends Governor Bill Prohibiting Employer ‘Captive Audience’ Meetings
On August 31, 2024, the California Legislature passed the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act, Senate Bill (SB) No. 399. The bill heads to Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until September 30, 2024, to sign it. If he does so, the act will add new Labor Code Section 1137.
Governor Newsom Unexpectedly Vetoes a Number of Pro-Employee/Pro-Union Bills
Later this month, we will report on all the new employment-related laws that California has enacted for 2024. However, this article focuses on the bills that Newsom vetoed. Some of these are a bit of a surprise.
SB 799: This bill would have required the EDD to treat employees who are on strike as eligible for unemployment. Many labor law attorneys, including the author of this article, anticipated that Newsom would sign this bill and allow California to join New York and New Jersey, as states that require UI benefits be paid to striking workers. However, Newsom vetoed the bill and indicated that the EDD did not have the finances to expand UI benefits to striking workers. The unions are very disappointed in Newsom for this veto.
Proposed California Constitutional Amendment For The Right To Organize And Negotiate With Employers
Last week, Senate Constitutional Amendment 7 (“SCA 7”) passed the California Senate Labor Committee. This provision, if placed before the voters and passed, would add Section 1.5 to Article XIV of the California Constitution. Specifically, SCA 7 would add to the California Constitution that Californians have the right to join a union and to negotiate with their employers, through their legally chosen representative, to protect their economic well-being and safety at work. It would also prohibit, after January 1, 2023, the passing of any statute or ordinance that interferes with or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and workplace safety.
Because it proposes a change to the state constitution, SCA 7 will require the approval of two-thirds of the members in each chamber before it is placed on the statewide ballot, potentially in the March 2024 statewide primary election.
9th Circuit Confirms Limited Application of Heightened Penalties for “Subsequent” Labor Code Violations
On February 23, 2021, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel held in the decision of Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc. (Case No. 19-15382) that employers are not subject to heightened penalties for subsequent violations under the Labor Code