It will no longer be possible to designate an employer`s founding non-California state or headquarters as a choice of law or jurisdiction in employment contracts of California-based workers who are not individually represented by an attorney. California employers should review the types of agreements needed as a condition of employment to determine if any changes are required to comply with this new law. New market practices, such as the inclusion of individual representation of a worker, as well as a judicial interpretation of the many ambiguities of the new law, are expected. We recently lied about Governor Brown`s signature S.B 1241, which is now codified as Section 925 of the California Labor Act. The law, which concerns the provisions relating to jurisdiction of court and choice of law in agreements concluded as a condition of employment, will apply from 1 January 2017 to contracts concluded, amended or renewed. The text of the law (posted directly at the bottom) may seem relatively simple, but some ambiguities and questions relating to the implementation of the law raise several issues that are discussed in this blog post. Legal choice and choice of jurisdiction clauses are everyday elements in contract law. They are already governed relatively uniformly in the United States by principles of common law, largely articulated in the reformulation of conflict-of-laws rules and in rules and doctrines of jurisdiction and procedure (such as forum non conveniens and personal jurisdiction). .