California's New #MeToo-Inspired Laws (And Everything That Didn't Make It)
Publicly held companies will be required to have at least one woman on their board of directors, and another law prohibits nondisclosure provisions in settlements involving sexual misconduct. But the governor vetoed one bill that would have restricted the use of mandatory arbitration provisions.
October 01, 2018 at 07:46 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday night signed a suite of #MeToo-inspired bills that require corporate boards to add more women and that limit nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements in sexual harassment and sexual discrimination settlements.
But the governor vetoed three related pieces of legislation, including the closely watched AB 3080, which would have prohibited mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment. Brown nixed similar legislation three years ago. Supporters of the latest bill, who said forced workplace arbitration silences victims while protecting harassers, failed to sway him.
“Since this bill plainly violates federal law,” Brown wrote of AB 3080, “I cannot sign this measure.”
Here's a look at some of the #MeToo workplace bills that are now law and some that were vetoed.
|Here are some of the new laws Brown put his signature on …
➤➤ No block on testifying. AB 3109 will bar settlement provisions that prevent someone from testifying about criminal conduct or sexual harassment in court or a legislative proceeding. The author, Assemblyman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, referenced the case of U.S. gymnast McKayla Maroney, who risked a $100.000 penalty for testifying in court against former team doctor Larry Nassar and potentially violating the terms of a settlement agreement with a national gymnastics governing body.
➤➤ No secret settlements. SB 820 will prohibit nondisclosure provisions in settlements involving sexual misconduct, unless the claimant wants confidentiality language. “SB 820 will finally lift the curtain of secrecy that has continued to protect these perpetrators by forcing their victims to remain silent,” the bill's author, Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino, said in a prepared statement.
➤➤ More women on corporate boards. By the end of 2019, SB 826 will require publicly held companies to have at least one woman on their board of directors. The first-in-the-nation law also mandates that the number of female directors must increase again in 2021, depending on the size of the board. “With numerous independent studies showing that corporations with women on their boards are more profitable, SB 826 is a giant step forward for women, our businesses and our economy,” said bill author Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara.
➤➤ Nondisparagement clauses outlawed. SB 1300 bars companies from requiring workers to agree to nondisparagement clauses as a term or employment or in exchange for a raise or bonus. The new law also addresses the “severe and pervasive” legal standard by declaring that a single incident of harassment creates a triable issue and that harassment exists when the activity changes the workplace environment to the point where it's more difficult for the victim to do his or her job.
➤➤ More workplace training. When it goes into effect in 2020, SB 1343 will increase the number of employers that must provide sexual harassment prevention training to their workers.
|… But not every bill made it. Here are the governor's vetoes.
➤➤ Record-keeping provision struck down. AB 1867 would have required companies with 50 or more employees to retain records of sexual harassment complaints for five years after either the complainant or the alleged harasser leaves employment. In a veto message, Brown said the extended time requirement for holding records was “unwarranted.”
➤➤ Complaint deadlines were not extended. AB 1870 would have extended the time to file a workplace harassment complaint with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing from one year to three years. “The current filing deadline—which has been in place since 1963—not only encourages prompt resolution while memories and evidence are fresh, but also ensures that unwelcome behavior is promptly reported and halted,” Brown wrote in his veto message.
➤➤ Ban on mandatory arbitration fails. Brown cited an opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan from 2017 in explaining his position that states are not free to bar mandatory arbitration agreements at their outset. AB 3080's attempt to bar mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment “is impermissible,” Brown wrote. Kagan, writing last year in Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. said the Federal Arbitration Act concerns both the entry into a contract and the enforcement of a contract.
➤➤ Retaliation. AB 3081 would have prohibited employers from firing or retaliating against a worker for having been sexually harassed. “Most of the provisions in this bill are contained in current law and are therefore unnecessary,” Brown wrote. “To the extent there are new provisions, they are confusing.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Approves 23andMe's $30M Data Breach Settlement - With Conditions
5 minute readFrozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
3 minute readBojangles Restaurant Chain Faces Several Lawsuits Following Data Breach
Trending Stories
- 1Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 2OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 34th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 4Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
- 5How the Trump II Administration Can Combat Antisemitism
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250