AB 692 — California's 2026 Law That Voids Stay-or-Pay Employment Agreements

HOME › CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW › WRONGFUL TERMINATION › Stay-or-Pay Agreements — AB 692 2026

Updated April 2026 to reflect Assembly Bill 692, effective January 1, 2026, which prohibits stay-or-pay provisions in California employment agreements and creates a private right of action for employees who are terminated, threatened, or disciplined for refusing to comply with void provisions.

You accepted a job offer. Buried in the offer letter — or in a separate agreement you signed during onboarding — was a clause. It said that if you left the company within a certain period, you would owe the employer money. Training costs. Relocation expenses. Signing bonus repayment. A "clawback" for benefits received during the first year.

You may have signed it. You may not have fully understood it. You may have felt you had no choice if you wanted the job.

As of January 1, 2026, California law says that a clause — in most circumstances — is void. It cannot be enforced against you.

And if your employer tried to collect it, threatened you with it, disciplined you for refusing to pay it, or terminated you because you would not repay it, they may have violated a California statute that entitles you to actual damages or $5,000, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees — plus a potential Tameny wrongful termination tort with access to the full range of civil damages.

This is AB 692. It is one of the most significant California employment law developments of 2026 — and most employees affected by it do not know it exists.

What Stay-or-Pay Agreements Are — And Why They Were Widespread

A stay-or-pay agreement is any contractual provision that conditions an employee's separation from employment on the repayment of costs or benefits provided by the employer during the employment relationship.

These provisions go by many names in employment contracts:

Common Names	What They Typically Require
Training repayment agreement (TRA)	Repayment of costs for training programs, certifications, or professional development if the employee leaves within a specified period
Clawback provision	Repayment of signing bonuses, relocation assistance, or other benefits if employment ends before a trigger date
Repayment clause	Broad repayment obligation for any employer-funded benefit if the employee voluntarily leaves or is terminated for cause
Stay bonus agreement	Payment of a bonus conditioned on remaining employed for a defined period — with repayment required if the employee leaves before the period ends
Education assistance repayment	Repayment of tuition, certification fees, or continuing education costs if the employee separates within a defined window
Relocation repayment agreement	Repayment of moving expenses, temporary housing, or travel costs if the employee separates within a specified period

These agreements became increasingly common in California and nationally as employers sought to recoup training investments, reduce turnover costs, and create financial disincentives to employee departure.

For employees — particularly those in healthcare, technology, skilled trades, and other sectors with significant employer training investment — they created what amounted to financial handcuffs: leave, and you owe money you may not have.

In many cases, the amounts involved were substantial. Training repayment agreements in healthcare settings could require repayment of $20,000 to $50,000 in training costs.

Relocation repayment agreements could require returning $15,000 to $30,000 in moving assistance. For employees who had genuinely outgrown their roles, received better offers, or were being pushed out by intolerable conditions, these provisions made departure financially impossible.

What AB 692 Does — The 2026 Law Explained

Assembly Bill 692, effective January 1, 2026, prohibits California employers from conditioning employment on stay-or-pay provisions. The bill amended the California Labor Code to make clear that:

1. Stay-or-pay provisions entered into on or after January 1, 2026 are void and unenforceable. A contract clause that requires an employee to repay training costs, relocation stipends, signing bonuses, or other employment-related expenses upon separation — entered into on or after the effective date — has no legal effect. The employer cannot collect it through a lawsuit, wage garnishment, or any other legal mechanism.

2. Employers cannot condition employment on these provisions. An employer cannot make the offer of employment, the continuation of employment, or any employment benefit contingent on the employee signing a stay-or-pay agreement. An employee who refuses to sign a void agreement cannot be denied a job, denied a promotion, or disciplined for the refusal.

3. Employers cannot collect, attempt to collect, or threaten to collect under void provisions. An employer who sends a demand letter, deducts amounts from final wages, or takes any action to collect repayment under a void agreement has committed an independent violation of AB 692.

4. A private right of action exists. An employee who is harmed by an employer's violation of AB 692 — through termination, discipline, collection attempts, or threats — can sue for actual damages or $5,000, whichever is greater, plus injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

Which Agreements Are Covered — And Which Are Not

AB 692's prohibition is broad but not unlimited. Understanding exactly which provisions the law voids — and which remain enforceable — is essential to evaluating whether your specific agreement is affected.

Agreement Type	AB 692 Coverage	Analysis
Training repayment agreements — employer-required training	✅ Void	Employer cannot require repayment for training the employer required as a condition of employment
Relocation assistance repayment	✅ Void — if conditioned on staying	Cannot be enforced if employee separates regardless of reason
Signing bonus clawback	✅ Void in most circumstances	Repayment conditions for employer-paid recruitment bonuses are void
Education assistance repayment — employer-required certification	✅ Void	Cannot require repayment for certifications required for the employee's role
Education assistance — purely voluntary advanced degree	🟡 Uncertain — fact-specific	May not be covered if genuinely voluntary and not role-required
Voluntary signing bonus structured as advance wages	🟡 Fact-specific	Wage advance structures may be treated differently than stay-or-pay provisions
Non-compete agreements	❌ Already void in California	Separately prohibited — AB 692 adds additional protections
Genuine loans to employees	❌ Not covered	Bona fide loans with loan terms, interest, and repayment schedules are not stay-or-pay provisions

The critical distinction the law draws is between employer-imposed financial conditions on the employment relationship — which AB 692 voids — and genuine loans or voluntary financial arrangements that the employee entered into for their own benefit independently of the employment relationship.

An employer who structured a training cost repayment as a formal loan — with loan documentation, interest, and a genuine lender-borrower relationship — may argue the arrangement falls outside AB 692's scope. Courts will evaluate the substance of the arrangement, not just its label.

The Enforcement Mechanism — What Employers Cannot Do

AB 692's prohibition extends beyond simply voiding the agreement. It prohibits a range of employer conduct related to stay-or-pay provisions — and each prohibited act creates an independent basis for the private right of action.

Prohibited Employer Conduct	Legal Consequence
Requiring employee to sign a stay-or-pay agreement as condition of employment	Independent AB 692 violation — actual damages or $5,000
Attempting to collect repayment under a void agreement	Independent violation — actual damages or $5,000 + injunction
Deducting repayment amounts from final wages	Violation of AB 692 + Labor Code wage deduction restrictions
Sending demand letters or collections referrals for void amounts	Independent violation — actual damages or $5,000
Threatening termination unless employee agrees to repay	Coercive conduct — violation + potential Tameny predicate
Terminating employee for refusing to sign or repay	Wrongful termination — AB 692 violation + Tameny tort
Disciplining employee for refusing to sign or repay	Independent violation — actual damages or $5,000
Conditioning promotion or advancement on signing	Independent violation — adverse employment action

The $5,000 minimum damages provision is significant — it means an employee does not need to demonstrate substantial actual economic harm to pursue an AB 692 claim.

An employer who sends a single demand letter for repayment under a void agreement has exposed itself to $5,000 in statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees — for a single letter.

The Tameny Connection — When AB 692 Becomes a Wrongful Termination Case

AB 692's most significant interaction with wrongful termination law is through the Tameny doctrine.

When an employer terminates an employee in connection with an AB 692 violation — for refusing to sign a void agreement, for refusing to repay a void amount, or for objecting to the employer's collection efforts — the termination violates a fundamental public policy grounded in AB 692's statutory prohibition.

This creates a Tameny tort claim in addition to the AB 692 statutory claim — and the Tameny tort provides access to damages that the AB 692 statutory framework alone does not.

Claim	Remedies	Key Advantage
AB 692 statutory violation	Actual damages or $5,000 + injunction + attorney's fees	Minimum damages guarantee — $5,000 floor regardless of actual harm
Tameny wrongful termination tort	Full back pay + front pay + emotional distress + punitive damages + attorney's fees	Uncapped damages — full tort recovery
Combined AB 692 + Tameny	Both remedies available simultaneously	Maximum coverage — statutory floor + full tort ceiling

The combination produces the same dual-pathway structure as workers' compensation retaliation cases — a statutory claim with guaranteed minimum remedies and a tort claim with uncapped damages.

For a full breakdown of how Tameny claims work and what public policies they protect, see our Tameny doctrine guide.

For the full wrongful termination framework, including all three theories — Tameny, FEHA, and implied contract — see our California wrongful termination guide.

Pre-2026 Agreements — What Happens to Existing Clauses

AB 692's void provision applies to agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2026. Agreements signed before that date are not automatically voided by the statute — but they may still be subject to legal challenge on other grounds.

Agreement Date	AB 692 Effect	Other Potential Challenges
Signed on or after January 1, 2026	✅ Void — unenforceable	N/A — AB 692 controls
Signed before January 1, 2026	❌ Not voided by AB 692	May be challengeable as unconscionable, as an unlawful wage deduction, or as against California public policy under prior case law
Renewed or modified on or after January 1, 2026	✅ Void — renewal/modification is a new agreement	The modification date governs
Employer attempts enforcement on or after January 1, 2026	🟡 Uncertain — enforcement conduct may be actionable	Collection attempts on pre-2026 agreements may raise separate claims

Employees with pre-2026 agreements who are being threatened with collection or facing termination over repayment demands should consult an employment attorney — even if AB 692 does not directly void the agreement, other legal theories may still apply.

California courts have historically been skeptical of training repayment agreements that effectively reduce employee wages below minimum wage, that create indentured-labor-like conditions, or that are so one-sided as to be unconscionable.

Industries Most Affected by AB 692

Stay-or-pay agreements were particularly prevalent in certain California industries — and employees in these sectors are most likely to have been affected by the pre-2026 agreements and to benefit from AB 692's 2026 protections.

Healthcare. Hospitals, health systems, and medical groups routinely used training repayment agreements for nurses, allied health professionals, and other clinical staff who completed expensive orientation and certification programs. Amounts demanded ranged from thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. AB 692 voids these agreements for any signed after January 1, 2026.

Technology. Employers in the technology sector used stay-pay provisions to retain employees who received expensive technical training, security clearances, or specialized certifications. Software engineers, cybersecurity professionals, and data scientists were frequently subject to training repayment clauses covering employer-sponsored certification programs.

Skilled trades and construction. Apprenticeship programs, journeyman training, and specialized equipment certifications were sometimes conditioned on multi-year retention requirements backed by repayment clauses. AB 692 affects any such agreement entered into after January 1, 2026.

Retail and service sector. Larger retail and hospitality employers used training repayment agreements for management development programs — requiring managers who completed training to remain employed for a defined period or repay the program costs. These provisions are now void for post-January 1, 2026 agreements.

Real Cases — Stay-or-Pay Enforcement and AB 692 Scenarios

Healthcare, San Francisco. A registered nurse signed a training repayment agreement during her hospital onboarding in March 2026 — after AB 692's effective date. The agreement required her to repay $28,000 in orientation and clinical training costs if she left within two years. After eight months, she received a better offer from a competing health system and gave notice.

Her employer sent a demand letter for $28,000 and threatened to refer the debt to collections. Because the agreement was entered into after January 1, 2026, it was void under AB 692.

The employer's demand letter — sent after the statute's effective date — was an independent AB 692 violation. Her attorney sent a cease-and-desist letter citing AB 692 and demanding the $5,000 statutory minimum plus attorney's fees.

The employer withdrew the demand within two weeks. The California Labor Commissioner accepts AB 692 complaints and can investigate employer collection attempts on void agreements.

Technology, San Jose. A software engineer signed an agreement in February 2026 requiring repayment of $15,000 in training costs if he left within 18 months.

After six months, he was placed on a performance improvement plan — the first negative documentation in three years — following his refusal to sign a modification to the original training agreement that would have extended the repayment window.

His attorney identified that the refusal to sign a void agreement modification was protected conduct under AB 692 — and that the PIP's appearance immediately after the refusal was evidence of retaliatory discipline.

The combined AB 692 violation and Tameny tort claim — the PIP was an adverse employment action in response to protected conduct — was supported by the timing and the complete absence of prior negative documentation. Use our wrongful termination case qualifier to assess whether your PIP or discipline followed an AB 692-protected refusal.

Retail management, Los Angeles. A district manager completed a management development program and signed a training repayment agreement in March 2026, requiring repayment of $8,500 if she left within two years. When she resigned for a competitor's offer, her employer deducted $8,500 from her final paycheck.

This was a double violation — AB 692 voided the repayment obligation, and California Labor Code § 221 prohibits unauthorized deductions from wages. She filed a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner and pursued the AB 692 private right of action simultaneously.

The employer repaid the deducted wages, waiting time penalties under Labor Code § 203, and AB 692 statutory damages and attorney's fees.

Skilled trades, Sacramento. A journeyman electrician signed a training repayment agreement in April 2026 requiring repayment of $12,000 in apprenticeship program costs if he left the employer within three years. He was terminated eight months later in what his employer characterized as a reduction in force.

The employer then sent a demand letter for prorated repayment — claiming the termination was for cause (despite having characterized it as a RIF) and therefore triggered the repayment obligation. The attempt to collect under a void AB 692 agreement — combined with the shifting explanation for the termination — resulted in an AB 692 collection-violation claim and a Tameny wrongful-termination claim with strong evidence of pretext.

The FEHA Claim Checker can help identify whether a termination connected to an AB 692 dispute also involves a FEHA discrimination theory.

What to Do If You Have a Stay-or-Pay Agreement

Identify when you signed it. The January 1, 2026 effective date is the critical dividing line. If you signed the agreement on or after that date, it is void under AB 692. If you signed before, other legal challenges may apply but AB 692 does not automatically void it.

Do not pay if the agreement is void. An employee who pays under a void AB 692 agreement may have difficulty recovering the payment — the payment itself can be treated as a voluntary settlement. If your employer is demanding repayment under what you believe is a post-January 1, 2026 agreement, consult an attorney before making any payment.

Document every collection attempt. Every demand letter, every email, every phone call in which repayment was demanded, and every instance in which the agreement was referenced in connection with your employment status. Each documented collection attempt is evidence of an independent AB 692 violation.

Do not resign without understanding your rights. If your employer is using a void stay-or-pay agreement to prevent you from accepting a better opportunity — threatening collection if you leave — that threat may itself be a violation of AB 692. You have the right to leave without repaying a void obligation, and the employer's use of a void provision to restrain your departure may support additional claims.

File promptly. AB 692 private right of action claims should be filed promptly — consult an attorney about the applicable statute of limitations, which will be governed by the nature of the violation and the applicable Labor Code provisions. Wage-related AB 692 violations may be subject to the California Labor Commissioner process as an alternative to civil suit.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does AB 692 apply to agreements signed before January 1, 2026? No — AB 692 voids stay-or-pay provisions in agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2026. Pre-existing agreements are not automatically voided by the statute. However, pre-2026 agreements may still be challengeable as unconscionable, as unlawful wage deductions under Labor Code § 221, or as against California public policy under prior case law. Consult an attorney about the specific agreement and circumstances.

Can my employer still require me to repay a signing bonus if I leave early? Signing bonus repayment provisions entered into on or after January 1, 2026, are void under AB 692 if they condition the bonus on the employee remaining employed for a defined period. A signing bonus that is genuinely structured as an advance on future wages — with documentation supporting that characterization — may be treated differently, but California courts will evaluate the substance of the arrangement rather than its label.

What if my employer deducted the repayment from my final paycheck? A deduction from final wages under a void AB 692 agreement is both an AB 692 violation and a violation of Labor Code § 221, which prohibits unauthorized wage deductions. File a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner's Office for the wage deduction claim and pursue the AB 692 private right of action simultaneously. Waiting time penalties under Labor Code § 203 may also apply if the deduction resulted in an underpayment of final wages.

My employer is threatening to sue me for repayment — what do I do? A lawsuit to collect repayment under a void AB 692 agreement is itself an AB 692 violation. You have a defense — the agreement is void — and a counterclaim — the collection attempt entitles you to the $5,000 statutory minimum, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. Consult a California employment attorney immediately. The threat of a lawsuit under a void provision may also support a Tameny claim if it is connected to coercive employment conduct.

If I were fired for refusing to sign a stay-or-pay agreement, what are my options? Terminating an employee for refusing to sign a void AB 692 agreement is a wrongful termination. You have an AB 692 statutory claim for actual damages or $5,000 and a Tameny tort claim for the full wrongful termination damages — back pay, front pay, emotional distress, and punitive damages where the conduct was malicious or oppressive. Consult an attorney about both claims.

Does AB 692 cover agreements that require repayment only if I am fired for cause? Potentially — the analysis depends on the specific language and whether the for-cause termination trigger effectively functions as a stay-or-pay condition. An agreement that voids the repayment obligation for involuntary termination without cause but preserves it for for-cause terminations may face scrutiny under AB 692 depending on how the for-cause trigger is defined and applied. This is a fact-specific analysis that requires an attorney's evaluation.

Connect With a Vetted California Employment Attorney

AB 692 is a 2026 statute — most employees and many employers are not yet aware of its scope or its consequences. If you have a stay-or-pay agreement signed after January 1, 2026, or if your employer has threatened or taken action in connection with such an agreement, a California employment attorney can evaluate your specific situation and advise on the full range of remedies available.

DISCLOSURE

This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. 1000Attorneys.com is a State Bar of California Certified Lawyer Referral and Information Service (LRS #0128), not a law firm.