Lab Code 925 prohibits employment contracts from containing provisions requiring an employee to litigate or arbitrate a claim in another state if the claim arises in California or depriving the employee of the substantive protection of California law in a suit arising in California.  A provision that violates the section is voidable by the employee, after which the matter shall be adjudicated in California.  In this case, a Utah employer filed suit in Utah against its former California employees for theft of trade secrets and unfair competition after they opened their own competing business in California. One of the former California employees filed a separate action in California alleging wage and hour claims, among others.  Denying the employer’s writ petition, this decision holds that Lab. Code 925 creates an implicit exception to the compulsory cross-complaint statute, CCP 426.30, allowing an employee to sue the employer separately in California after the court renders the employer’s forum selection clause void at the employee’s request.  The employee need not plead his claims against the employer in a cross-complaint filed in an out-of-state action the employer earlier commenced against the employee.  The opinion also concludes that at least before entry of a final judgment in the out-of-state court, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require California courts to follow the other state’s compulsory cross-complaint statute or rule.