©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2024 Cal-Peculiarities | 365 25 Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 142 Cal. App. 4th 603 (2006) (former employer’s insistence on invalid release—arguably covering section 2802 indemnity claims—in exchange for ending an non-competition agreement was wrongful act supporting action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage where job offer by successor employer required execution of the release), review granted, No. S147190 (Cal. Nov. 29, 2006). 26 Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937, 954-55 (2008). 27 See discussion supra § 12.01.. 28 Lab. Code § 206.5. 29 Chindarah v. Pick Up Stix, Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 796, 803 (2009). See also Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, 209 Cal. App. 4th 556, 577-78 (2012) (release of wage claim was enforceable, notwithstanding section 206.5, because a bona fide dispute existed as to whether wages were owed, and because the plaintiff received extra payment for releasing the disputed claim); Watkins v. Wachovia Corp., 172 Cal. App. 4th 1576, 1587 (2009) (when bona fide wage dispute exists, disputed amounts are not due, so dispute can be settled with a release and a payment, even if the payment is for less than the total wages claimed). 30 The USERRA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their military service. 38 U.S.C. § 4301(a). Section 4311(a) of the USERRA also forbids employers to deny re-employment or retention in employment based on employees’ military service. 31 Breletic v. CACI, Inc., 413 F. Supp. 2d 1329, 1337-38 (N.D. Ga. 2006). 32 Perez v. Uline, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 953, 958 (2007) (“The statute plainly states that a contract may not limit the protections of USERRA, which prohibits termination of employment based on membership in the military or performance of military service. Thus, defendant’s assertion that the agreement waived the protections of USERRA cannot be sustained.”). 33 Id. at 957-58 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 4302(b)). 34 Civ. Code § 1670.11. 35 Civ. Proc. Code § 1001(a)(3). As originally drafted, section 1001(a)(3) covered agreements restricting factual disclosures about sexual harassment and sexual discrimination. The law was expanded to cover all forms of workplace discrimination and harassment by SB 331, which passed in 2021. The expanded provisions are effective for agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2022. 36 Civ. Proc. Code § 1001(e). 37 Civ. Proc. Code § 1001(c). 38 Civ. Proc. Code § 1002.5(a), (b)(1)(A). 39 Civ. Proc. Code § 1002.5(b)(1)(B), (b)(2). 40 Gov’t Code § 12964.5(a)(1). 41 Gov’t Code § 12964.5(a)(1)(B)(ii). 42 Gov’t Code § 12964.5(c). 43 Gov’t Code § 12964.5(b)(4). 44 Gov’t Code § 12964.5(d). 45 Gov’t Code § 12964.5(d)(2). 46 Santa Monica Municipal Code § 4.67.110. 47 Santa Monica Municipal Code §§ 4.67.050(b), 4.67.050(c). 48 Santa Monica Municipal Code §§ 4.67.050(b), 4.67.050(g). 49 Santa Monica Municipal Code § 4.67.050(f). 50 Santa Monica Municipal Code § 4.67.120. 51 SB 93, 2021 bill codified in Lab. Code § 2810.8. 52 Lab. Code § 2810.8(a). 53 Id. 54 Id. § 2810.8(b). 55 Id. § 2810.8(d). 56 Id. § 2810.8(g). 57 Santa Monica Municipal Code §§ 4.66.010 et seq. 58 Santa Monica Municipal Code § 4.66.030(a). 59 Santa Monica Municipal Code § 4.66.030(a). 60 Santa Monica Municipal Code §§ 4.66.040-4.66.050.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4