A separation agreement won't block a company from shielding its staff, the justices found
A California appeals court said employers can't bargain away their power to seek a workplace violence restraining order, even inside a separation agreement.
The ruling, issued July 6, 2026, by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, gives HR leaders and employment lawyers a clear signal about the reach — and the limits — of a release in a departure deal. The core holding: some protections simply aren't yours to sign away.
At the center was the Adelanto Elementary School District and its former superintendent. Three executive assistants who worked closely with the district's board reported roughly two years of conduct that they said left them afraid. The trial court found the former superintendent had engaged in a harassing course of conduct toward each of them, and he did not dispute that finding on appeal.
The opinion laid out the pattern in detail. He texted one assistant a photo of her waiting in line at a Chipotle, the court said, adding, "We saw a strange person at Chipotle. Police have been notified." Another was sent a nighttime photo of her own home. A third received a message about her neighborhood that read, "visited my special friend last night in Barstow." In one office encounter, the court recounted, he poked an employee and told her, "Your mistakes are killing me!" He denied the poking and gave benign explanations for the messages; the trial court found some accounts "feasible" and others "strained."
The employment law question turned on timing. He and the district had signed a separation agreement releasing claims tied to his employment. So when the district later sought a restraining order for the three employees, he argued that release had already waived the right.
It hadn't, the court said. An employer's right to pursue such an order on behalf of its workers is "established for a public reason" and therefore unwaivable under state law — because a safe workplace benefits coworkers and the public, not just the company signing the deal. That reasoning is the takeaway for anyone drafting separation terms: a broad release does not reach this far.
The court also applied the expanded version of the statute, effective January 1, 2025, that now covers harassment, not only violence or threats. The change lets employers act sooner. Reviewing the record, the court found enough evidence of likely future harassment, citing a pattern of "stalking and texting behavior," a lack of remorse, and the fact that the former superintendent was later elected to the board these employees regularly work with.
He won on two narrower points. Now an elected official, he had been barred from commenting on the order at board meetings; the court struck that provision as broader than the First Amendment permits. It also cut the order from four years to the three-year statutory cap. Everything else stayed in place.
The message for employers is practical. A release does not erase the duty to protect staff from harassment, and the updated statute puts a response within reach before conduct turns violent.
