Section 1001 has been added to the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits confidentiality conditions in transaction agreements that “prevent the disclosure of actual information relating to a civil action or civil action complaint,” where the claim relates to acts of sexual assault, sexual harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace or discrimination on the basis of sex. The law does not appear to prohibit confidentiality clauses in separation agreements when parties resolve issues during the pre-procedure phase, for example. B when a letter of application has been sent, but no action has been filed with an administrative authority or court. For employers who fear they will now have to put all the bad apples that show up at your door after they`ve been fired, take a heart. AB 749 examined these concerns and sought to dispel them. The new law explains that it does not prevent you from accepting the end of the current working relationship with an “injured person.” Finally, when resolving disputes with former workers or negotiating compensation agreements with current workers, employers should be prepared for the new reality that these workers could apply for employment again the day after their accounts were paid. Supporters of AB 749, including their author, Assemblyman Mark Stone (D-Monterey), argued that the bill was necessary to protect victims of workplace harassment. “The non-re-hire clause punishes victims of discrimination or sexual harassment from maintaining employment, while the perpetrator remains at work,” Assemblyman Stone said in a press release. Release agreements often require the employee to maintain the confidentiality of all aspects of the transaction, including sometimes the underlying factual assertions. These provisions must be in line with the restrictions of the new federal and regional laws. Employers should also ensure compliance with the new law by training appropriate staff to address employment issues in California, particularly those not based in California but who are part of their role. In California, most competition, recruitment and non-invitation rules do not apply. The inclusion of these provisions may lead to a challenge to the applicability of the agreement.

California employers should check the language in their standard billing and severance agreements. As of January 1, 2020, no-Rehire provisions are generally null and void. However, they may be admitted if the employer is satisfied in good faith that the worker has committed acts of sexual harassment or sexual assault. If the employer has a “legitimate and non-discriminatory or inseminating reason” for dismissal or refusal to reintegrate, employers can rely on the same thing to decide not to reinstate a former worker. This new legislation allows employers to update their transaction forms and review their reintegration standards. AB 749 does not eliminate the ability of an employer and the current employee to enter into a severance agreement. In addition, the law does not require an employer to reinstate former workers if the employer has made a good faith decision that the person signing the release has committed acts of sexual harassment or sexual assault, or where there is a legitimate reason, non-discriminatory or not, to terminate the employment relationship or refuse to reinstate the person. However, AB 749 provides no indication as to how to determine whether such a reason is legitimate, non-discriminatory or not. Under the new California law, these provisions will soon no longer apply. From January 1, 2020, transaction agreements will no longer be able to contain provisions prohibiting, preventing or otherwise preventing a worker from retaining a future job with that employer. The same is true for all parent companies, subsidiaries, divisions, related or contracting companies.