Skip to main content

Not So Fast: California Rewrites the Rules on “Stay or Pay” Provisions

In an earlier post, we discussed AB 692, California’s landmark “Stay or Pay” ban (the “Ban”), which prohibits most employment contracts requiring worker repayment upon termination.  On September 30, 2026, Governor Newsom signed AB 1697.  This bill pushes the operative date of AB 692, expands the sign-on bonus exemption, and creates two entirely new exemptions but otherwise retains the core tenets of AB 692.

What Stays the Same?

Importantly, the broad prohibition at the heart of the Ban stands firm.  It will remain unlawful to include in any employment contract—or require a worker to execute as a condition of employment—any term that:

  • Requires a worker to pay an employer, training provider, or debt collector if the worker’s employment terminates;
  • Authorizes the employer, training provider, or debt collector to resume or initiate collection of, or end forbearance on, a debt upon termination; or
  • Imposes any penalty, fee, or cost on a worker upon termination.

The Ban’s broad definitions of “contract,” “debt,” and “penalty, fee, or cost” also remain intact, as does its expansive definition of “worker.”  AB 1697 also does not alter the scope of covered workers, which includes any person who works for or on behalf of an employer or business entity, or who is permitted to participate in any other work relationship, job training program, or skills training program.

What’s Changed?

Below is a quick snapshot outlining AB 1697’s major changes and updates to AB 692.

TermAB 692 (Original)AB 1697 (New)Notes
Enforcement DateJanuary 1, 2026January 1, 2027

Under AB 1697, the Ban is applicable only to contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2027, and the original AB 692 provisions are inoperative for all of 2026.

 

AB 1697 also bars liability under the Ban for stay or pay contracts entered into between January 1, 2026, and September 30, 2026. 

Existing Exemptions 

The following categories of contracts are exempt:

  1. Contracts under government-provided loan repayment or forgiveness programs;
  2. Contracts for tuition repayment for a transferable credential, provided the five conditions laid out in the earlier post are met;
  3. Contracts for enrollment in an approved apprenticeship program;
  4. Contracts for the receipt of discretionary or unearned monetary payment, such as a financial bonus, at the outset of employment that is not tied to specific job performance, provided the five conditions laid out in the earlier post are met; and
  5. Contracts related to the lease, financing, or purchase of residential property.

The categories of contracts that were exempt under AB 692 remain exempt with just the one change below:

  1. No change;
  2. No change;
  3. No change;
  4. Eliminates the “at the outset of employment” limitation. All other requirements remain unchanged; and
  5. No change.

Under AB 692, the exemption for repayable sign-on bonuses applied only to payments made “at the outset of employment.”  That restriction left retention bonuses for current employees stranded in a gray zone.

 

AB 1697 eliminates this limitation.  Employers may now structure exempt repayable bonus arrangements for both new hires and existing workers, provided the arrangement still satisfies all other statutory conditions.

Exemption for Financial Services Recruiting and Retention PaymentsNo such exemption.

AB 1697 exempts a contract for the receipt of a discretionary or unearned monetary payment from the employer that serves as an inducement for affiliation or continued relationship, provided the following conditions are met:

  1. The repayment obligation is documented in a separate agreement from the primary employment contract;
  2. The payment is in addition to compensation otherwise payable to the worker;
  3. The worker is given at least five business days to consult with counsel; and
  4. The interest rate on any post-employment repayment obligation does not exceed the applicable federal rate published by the IRS.

AB 1697 carves out an entirely new exemption for certain compensatory arrangements in the financial services industry.  The exemption covers contracts with “agents or representatives” of securities broker-dealers, investment advisers, and qualifying insurance providers.

 

Notably, unlike the general bonus exemption, this financial services exemption permits interest on post-employment repayment obligations.  This distinction preserves common forgivable loan and transition compensation practices in the industry.

Exemption for PTO AdvancesNo such exemption.

AB 1697 exempts the repayment obligation of an advanced PTO payment in excess of a worker’s accrued paid time off where the employee voluntarily separates from employment. To qualify:

  1. The repayment obligation must be clearly disclosed to the worker separately from the primary employment contract, at the time the worker requests the PTO advance;
  2. The repayment obligation may not exceed 40 hours of accrued paid time off; and
  3. The obligation may not be subject to interest accrual.

A second new exemption permits employers to recover advanced paid time off when an employee voluntarily separates before accruing the advanced leave.

 

This exemption provides welcome certainty for employers that allow workers to borrow against future PTO accruals.

Enforcement Actions
  • Creates a private right of action for employees to bring claims on behalf of themselves and “other persons similarly situated.” 
  • Employers found liable face actual damages or $5,000 per worker, whichever is greater, plus injunctive relief and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 
  • Remedies are cumulative and do not limit a worker’s ability to pursue claims under other laws.
No change. 

Next Steps

Though AB 1697 suspends the Ban’s enforcement until January 1, 2027, employers should use the remaining months of 2026 to revisit template agreements for use beginning January 1, 2027.  While the expanded exemptions open new doors for structuring compliant arrangements, strict adherence to each exemption’s procedural requirements remains essential.  Missteps can quickly turn modest compliance costs into significant per-worker penalties.  Mintz’s Employment Practice is ready to assist with any questions about how these amendments affect employers’ existing or planned compensation arrangements.

Subscribe To Viewpoints

Authors

Brody Zaugg

Brody Zaugg

Associate

Brody A. Zaugg is an Associate at Mintz who concentrates his practice on employment litigation and counseling clients on employment policies and workplace practices.
Nikki M. Rivers is a Member at Mintz who defends employers in employment litigation and labor matters and advises on employment best practices. She handles cases involving claims of wage and hour violations, harassment, retaliation, discrimination, breach of employment agreements, FMLA violations, and violations of California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Family Rights Act (CFRA), and Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).