Midwest Motor Supply Co. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 6305492 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)
Patrick Finch worked as a sale supervisor for Midwest Motor Supply and was employed in 2014 pursuant to an employment agreement that contained a choice-of-law and forum selection clause invoking Ohio law and venue in Franklin County, Ohio. Finch was promoted in 2016 and received a new compensation plan; he also received new compensation plans in 2017 and 2018. After Finch sued Midwest in California in 2019 for various Labor Code violations, Midwest filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, stay the action on the basis of the Ohio forum-selection clause. The trial court denied Midwest's motion on the ground that the modifications to the compensation plan in 2017 and 2018 occurred after January 1, 2017 (the operative date of Labor Code § 925, which generally renders out-of-state forum selection clauses voidable by a California employee). The Court of Appeal denied Midwest's petition for writ of mandate, holding that a modification to an employment agreement on or after January 1, 2017 triggers Section 925 even though the modification was to a provision other than the forum-selection clause.
Non-California Forum Selection Clause Is Barred By Labor Code Section 925
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
