The provision is part of a law on the protection of sexual harassment of workers, which came into force last month. The law, inspired by the #MeToo movement according to its sponsor: A: If the agreement resolves a labour dispute with an “injured person”, you can no longer include a non-rehiring scheme in the contract for California employees. Assembly Bill 749 (“AB 749”), which amends the California Code of Civil Procedure, came into effect on January 1, 2020 and provides that if an illegal non-registration provision is included in a settlement agreement, the provision is legally non-applicable. An “aggrieved person” is defined as a person who has brought an action against the employer in court, an administrative agency, another dispute resolution forum or in the context of the employer`s internal appeal procedure. A “no-Rehire” provision in a contract of transaction or severance pay concluded on or after January 1, 2020 is generally null and void. However, there are notable exceptions and California employers can now take the following steps to ensure compliance with this new law: since there is a risk that non-reintroducation will not be applicable and jeopardize the applicability of transaction agreements, employers should consider including a non-rehire regime in their agreements with California employees. In addition to deciding whether non-relocation is necessary in particular circumstances, the employer should also take into account its relative market share in the sector, its expansion plans, the specialization of the employee profession and the extent to which the worker`s opportunities for practice would be limited. Q: My company`s standard investment contract contains a non-rehire plan. Can I continue to include this provision for California employees? The terms of the agreement were then reduced to the letter. Dr. Golden refused to sign the written agreement and tried to set it aside. He argued that the non-rehire regime was contrary to California law because a contract limits the legal exercise of a profession. “Given the CEP`s dominance in emergency medicine” in California and its “aggressive” expansion plans, Dr.
Golden said the agreement will “significantly reduce its opportunities for practice.” AB 749 is another legislative descendant of the #Metoo movement. As the debate on this bill has found, it has become increasingly common for workers` claims against their employers to contain a “non-rehire” regime. However, these provisions were sometimes global and prohibited a worker from working in a workplace owned or linked to the employer. Other non-rehire problems were highlighted when employees discovered that certain provisions required the employee who had complained of discrimination or sexual harassment not to continue working, while the alleged perpetrator remained in the profession. During the hearing, counsel for the CEP acknowledged that the non-rehire regime was an essential clause and that the CEP would not have accepted an agreement without that provision. Therefore, the 9th Circle stated that the CEP cannot dispute “that the fate of the whole agreement, we should cancel such a provision”. Effective July 1, 2018, a new Vermont law states that “the agreement to settle a right to sexual harassment must not prevent the worker from working, preventing or otherwise restricting the employer or parent company, subsidiary, department or subsidiary of the employer.” Such a clause is rendered “non-applicable and not applicable” by the new Vermont law. The Amtsgericht had concluded that Dr. Golden, since the No Rehire regime did not prohibit working for competitors of CEP Code 16600, trade and profession, did not invalidate the transaction contract.