A non-reinstatement provision could be made before 2143 if the employer found in good faith that the “injured person” had committed acts of sexual harassment or sexual assault. AB 2143 revises the Code of Civil Procedure 1002.5 b) (1) (B) and requires that the employer`s determination be “documented” in good faith. This new legislation allows employers to update their transaction forms and review their reintegration standards. In addition, all employers should review their redundancy and settlement agreements. All relocation provisions in these agreements are deemed null and void under the law. However, it is important to note that the lending provisions of the law remain permitted when an employee has sexually harassed or discriminated against another employee, broken the law or been denounced for a legitimate reason outside of harassment or discrimination. Therefore, where an employer has legally dismissed a person on grounds of non-discrimination or unauthorized persons, it is not obliged to exclude this non-reinstatement provision in those termination contracts. AB 749 is scheduled to come into effect on January 1, 2020 and will only apply to transaction agreements reached on or after January 1, 2020. California courts have previously ruled that overly strict provisions on the non-setting of the California Business and Professions Code 16600 are unresolved. Opponents of AB 749 argued that legislation was not necessary in light of these former farms. 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. The non-reinstatement provisions generally provide that a former employee is not reinstated by the employer or its parent companies, subsidiaries or subsidiaries as part of an employment dispute settlement agreement. In addition, these provisions may stipulate that refusal to reintegrate cannot constitute evidence of discrimination or retaliation. Although these provisions were customary, such provisions are now prohibited in California by Assembly Bill 749, which will come into effect as the California Code of Civil Procedure ` 1002.5. The inclusion of “good faith” in the definition of “aggrieved person” provides employers with some – but not much – flexibility to include non-recruitment provisions. In the event of a dispute, the burden of proof would be on the applicant (i.e., the worker) to prove that his claim was invoked in good faith against the employer. However, it also underscores the importance of proper documentation and review of staff members` complaints to determine whether an employee`s complaint is filed in “good faith” or not. In addition, section of the Civil Procedure Code 1002.5 (b) (1) (B) emphasizes the importance of employers documenting and investigating workplace incidents, particularly in the case of sexual harassment or assault.
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.