California Forum Selection Clause Employment Agreement
LFG requested that the appeal be dismissed on the basis of the above provision for the selection of the forum and the choice of right. According to LFG, handoush, if he wanted to assert claims against LFG, would have to make a fresh start in a New York court. Handoush argued, inter alia, that the provision was not applicable because it would deprive him of his substantive right to a jury trial. The court dismissed the complaint and Handoush appealed. To the extent that employers believe that NuVasive Section 925 and California`s public policy have been correctly interpreted, employers may consider meeting the requirements of the represented workers exception. If employers decide that enforcement of non-compete clauses in California is of the utmost importance, NuVasive would propose that employers negotiate their choice and forum selection clauses with workers represented by counsel. If a California worker does not have legal assistance when entering into a non-compete clause, employers might want to consider whether they should reimburse the workers for attorney fees. While in most cases such a measure can be prohibitive, employers may, in some cases, decide that the benefits of applying non-California law outweigh the costs. On the other hand, Section 925 subdivision (b) states that an abusive provision “is questionable by the worker and if a provision is rescinded at the worker`s request, the case is decided in California and California law settles the dispute.” This indicates whether the worker is the one who controls whether or not the provision (choice or jurisdiction) is complied with. The law is very unusual in that it is not simply annulled, but makes it countervailable. Logically, this means that this is not an illegal provision from the outset – otherwise it would simply be void – but potentially illegal, depending on what the worker chooses and whether the worker was represented by chance by a lawyer when the contract was concluded. The law is clearly written in such a way that the worker has the opportunity to use (and enforce) the dubious provision if it is favourable to him, or to demand that it be invalidated if it is not favourable.
It is probably not an illegal clause or an illegal act of the employer to use them if the worker likes them and chooses to enforce them. In this scenario, the employer does not have the opportunity to know in advance what decision the worker will make in this regard, which is important, since knowledge of the employer is an important factor in determining liability. On the contrary, the inclusion of a language allowing an employee to cancel the agreement appears to be a response to previous bills that have been vetoed in previous legislative sessions, including AB 267 (Swanson, 2011), AB 335 (Fuentes, 2009) and AB 1043 (Swanson, 2007). . . .