AB 692 Explained: California Limits Stay-or-Pay Employment Contracts
Table of Contents
Toggle
California’s AB 692 took effect for qualifying contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026. The law targets employment terms that can make workers owe money, trigger debt collection, or face a penalty simply because their work relationship with a particular employer ends.
These provisions are often called “stay-or-pay” clauses or Training Repayment Agreement Provisions, sometimes shortened to TRAPs. AB 692 is significant, but it is not a blanket ban on every tuition agreement, bonus repayment clause, apprenticeship agreement, or repayment obligation.
This guide explains what AB 692 prohibits, the exceptions written into the law, what happens to older agreements, and what workers should do if they receive a repayment demand.
What Does AB 692 Prohibit?
AB 692 added Business and Professions Code section 16608 and Labor Code section 926.
For contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026, the law generally prohibits covered contract terms that do any of the following when a worker’s employment or work relationship with a specific employer ends:
- Require the worker to pay an employer, training provider, or debt collector for a debt.
- Authorize collection to begin or resume, or end a period of forbearance on a debt.
- Impose a penalty, fee, or cost because the work relationship terminates.
The statute defines “penalty, fee, or cost” broadly and gives examples such as replacement-hire fees, retraining fees, replacement fees, quit fees, reimbursement for certain immigration or visa-related costs, liquidated damages, lost goodwill, and lost profit.
The focus is on the practical effect of the contract, not simply the heading used by the employer.
Who Is Protected by AB 692?
The statute uses the term “worker” broadly. It includes a natural person who is permitted to work for or on behalf of an employer or business entity or participate in another work relationship, job training program, or skills training program. The definition includes employees and prospective employees.
The statute’s definition of a contract is also broad. It includes written or oral, express or implied promises, undertakings, contracts, or agreements.
What Is a Training Repayment Agreement Provision?
A Training Repayment Agreement Provision can require a worker to reimburse claimed training, education, recruiting, onboarding, or similar costs if the worker leaves before a specified period.
Examples of Stay-or-Pay Terms That May Raise Concerns
A covered agreement may be problematic when it requires:
- A fixed “quit fee” for leaving before a stated date.
- Repayment of internal training costs solely because the employee resigns.
- A replacement-hire or retraining fee triggered by separation.
- Liquidated damages tied to leaving the employer.
- Collection of a debt that had been suspended while the worker remained employed.
- Certain immigration or visa-related reimbursement obligations triggered by termination.
Whether a particular term violates the law depends on the contract date, the repayment trigger, the parties involved, and whether an exception applies.
AB 692 Has Important Exceptions
The law contains several express exceptions. Workers should not assume that every repayment term signed in 2026 is automatically void.
Government Loan Repayment or Forgiveness Programs
AB 692 does not apply to a contract entered into under a loan repayment assistance or loan forgiveness program provided by a federal, state, or local government agency.
Tuition for a Transferable Credential
A tuition-repayment agreement for a qualifying transferable credential can be excluded from the prohibition if statutory conditions are satisfied.
Among other requirements:
- The tuition agreement must be separate from the employment contract.
- The credential cannot be required as a condition of employment.
- The repayment amount must be disclosed before the agreement and cannot exceed the employer’s cost.
- Repayment during a required employment period must be prorated.
- The contract cannot require an accelerated payment schedule when employment ends.
- Repayment generally cannot be required if the worker is terminated, except for termination based on misconduct as defined by the statute.
Approved Apprenticeship Programs
Contracts related to enrollment in an apprenticeship program approved by the California Division of Apprenticeship Standards are also excepted.
Certain Discretionary or Unearned Bonuses
AB 692 allows a narrow exception for certain discretionary or unearned monetary payments, including some financial bonuses provided at the outset of employment, when all statutory safeguards are met.
The agreement must be separate from the primary employment contract. The employee must be told about the right to consult an attorney and receive at least five business days to seek legal advice before signing. Any repayment must be prorated, cannot accrue interest, and the retention period cannot exceed two years.
The worker must also have an option to defer receiving the payment until the end of the retention period without a repayment obligation. Early separation must be at the employee’s election or based on employer termination for misconduct.
Certain Residential Property Agreements
The statute also excludes contracts related to the lease, financing, or purchase of residential property, including certain contracts governed by residential mortgage lending law.
Does AB 692 Apply to Agreements Signed Before 2026?
The statute’s express voiding provision applies to contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026.
An older agreement should therefore not be described as automatically void under AB 692. That does not mean an older stay-or-pay agreement is necessarily enforceable. Other California laws may still affect the agreement, including rules concerning restraints on trade, reimbursement of business expenses, wage deductions, and other contract principles.
What Remedies Does AB 692 Provide?
Labor Code section 926 authorizes a covered worker or worker representative to bring a civil action for prohibited conduct.
A person found liable may owe actual damages or $5,000 per affected worker, whichever is greater, plus injunctive relief and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
What If the Employer Tries to Deduct the Amount From a Final Paycheck?
California places restrictions on deductions from wages. Even if an employer claims a repayment obligation exists, deducting the amount directly from final wages can raise separate wage-law questions.
What to Do if You Receive a Repayment or Collection Demand
- Keep the complete agreement and every attachment.
- Save the offer letter, training records, tuition documents, bonus paperwork, invoices, and repayment schedules.
- Preserve emails, texts, and collection notices.
- Identify when the agreement was entered into.
- Ask for an itemized explanation of the amount and the legal basis for collection.
- Do not ignore a court document or formal deadline.
- Avoid making unnecessary admissions about owing the debt before the agreement has been reviewed.
- Seek California employment-law advice promptly if collection, a final-paycheck deduction, or a large repayment demand is involved.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not automatically. AB 692 prohibits many termination-triggered repayment terms in contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026, but statutory exceptions can apply.
No. The law includes exceptions, and older agreements may be analyzed under different laws. The exact terms and contract date matter.
No. AB 692 contains an exception for certain discretionary or unearned monetary payments when detailed safeguards are satisfied.
For the AB 692 bonus exception, the employee must be notified of the right to consult an attorney and receive a reasonable period of at least five business days to obtain advice before signing.
The statute provides for actual damages or $5,000 per worker, whichever is greater, plus injunctive relief and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when liability is established.
No. The statute’s express voiding provision applies to contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026. Older agreements require a separate legal analysis.
Final Takeaway
AB 692 gives California workers stronger protection against employment terms that effectively charge them for leaving a job, but the law is structured around specific triggers and exceptions.
Do not judge an agreement by the words “training repayment” or “bonus clawback” alone. The key questions are when the agreement was entered into, what causes repayment or collection, what the money represents, whether an exception applies, and whether the employer is also using wage deductions or collection pressure.
Social Share
Ricardo López
Ricardo López is the founder and lead attorney at Ricardo Lopez Law, where he is committed to providing strong, compassionate legal representation. With a deep understanding of the law and a tireless dedication to justice, Ricardo works closely with clients to guide them through challenging legal situations. On the blog, he shares valuable legal tips, insights, and updates to help individuals make informed decisions and protect their rights.
Practice areas
Client Reviews
"I want to thank Ricardo Lopez and the attorneys at Ricardo Lopez Law for helping me with my employment case. Mr. Lopez was compassionate, patient, and I always felt that I was in good hands. I definitely recommend Ricardo Lopez."
Maria C.
"Ricardo Lopez is a very effective and efficient attorney. He fights for workers’ rights, and he will not rest until you receive justice. I am thrilled with my settlement!"
Jesus M.
"Ricardo is an amazing attorney. He was efficient and was able to resolve my case within 7 months. I was very happy with the result, and I can’t thank him enough for his hard work!"
Lucia M.
"If you’re looking for legal representation, Ricardo Lopez is the attorney you should hire. Mr. Lopez was very responsive, confident, and knowledgeable. He makes sure you understand your options and keeps you informed. He obtained the policy limits for my case, and I couldn’t be happier!"
Danielle M.
"Ricardo Lopez is an excellent attorney! My case was resolved in a short period of time. He is truly the best attorney out there. Thanks to him I won my case."
Blanca H.
"Mr. Lopez provided excellent, top-notch services. He is very professional, welcoming, and knowledgeable."