Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
April House alleged that she lived and worked in San Diego County while serving as President of HR Benefits Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Washington Technology Industry Association. Her October 2021 employment agreement selected Washington law and King County, Washington, as the venue for disputes. House alleged years of sexual harassment by WTIA's chief executive officer, Michael Thomas Schutzler, much of it reaching her through digital messages or video while she was in California. She filed California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims in San Diego Superior Court, and Defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Defendants Portalus LLC, HRBI, WTIA, and Schutzler moved to stay the case and transfer it to the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). They relied on the agreement's forum-selection clause and, independently, on the convenience of Washington witnesses and other transfer factors. House opposed the motion and requested $3,000 in attorney's fees under California Labor Code § 925(c). After the motion was filed, she notified Defendants on April 14, 2026, that she was exercising her statutory right to void the forum-selection clause.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that § 925 governed the agreement because it was entered after the statute's effective date, House primarily resided and worked in California, and she was not represented by counsel in negotiating it. The Washington forum and choice-of-law provisions were precisely the kind of employment conditions the statute prohibits. House's election therefore voided the clause, eliminating the modified transfer analysis applicable to contractually valid forum-selection clauses. But the court rejected House's further argument that § 925(b)'s direction that the matter be adjudicated in California ended the federal transfer inquiry. California's policy was an important factor, not a rule displacing § 1404(a).
Applying the ordinary transfer framework, the court found that Defendants had not made the required strong showing of inconvenience. House's home-forum choice received substantial deference because she worked in San Diego and a substantial part of the alleged harassment reached her there. The claims had contacts in both states, while Defendants' decision to employ and supervise a California president gave them meaningful California contacts. Washington witness convenience favored transfer only moderately: the declarations did not connect witnesses to specific alleged incidents, depositions would occur near witnesses' homes in any event, and transfer would shift travel burdens to House rather than eliminate them. Compulsory process, electronic proof, negotiation location, consolidation, and court congestion were neutral or nearly so; FEHA familiarity and California public policy weighed against transfer.
The court consequently denied the motion to transfer, declared the requested stay pending that ruling moot, and overruled Defendants' evidentiary objections. It also denied House's fee request. Although § 925(c) permits reasonable fees, the court found no bad faith or unreasonableness: the forum-selection argument was not frivolous when filed before House voided the clause, Defendants subsequently relied on the still-available § 1404(a) framework, and their witness showing was colorable.
Key Takeaways
- Voiding an employment forum-selection clause under California Labor Code § 925 removes the clause from the transfer analysis but does not automatically prevent a federal court from considering transfer under § 1404(a).
- An employee's choice of her home forum retains substantial weight when she worked there and the alleged harassment reached her there, even if the employer and many potential witnesses are elsewhere.
- General declarations about witness hardship may support transfer only moderately when they do not identify testimony about specific alleged incidents and transfer would merely shift inconvenience to the plaintiff.
- The court denied fees under § 925(c) because the unsuccessful motion was not shown to have been brought or maintained in bad faith or unreasonably.
Why It Matters
The decision separates two questions that can easily be conflated: whether California law invalidates an employment forum-selection clause and whether federal venue law nevertheless favors transfer. Section 925 supplied the rule on contractual validity, while § 1404(a) continued to govern the discretionary venue decision, with California's adjudication policy weighed as one significant consideration.
The ruling also shows how the location of remote work and electronically directed conduct can preserve deference to a California employee's chosen forum. It does not establish that every case involving a voided clause must remain in California; the result rested on this record's claim contacts, party contacts, witness evidence, and the likelihood that transfer would simply relocate the inconvenience.