(323) 652-9451 - LA(628) 230-6920 - SFO
(805) 845-1752 - SBA
(323) 652-9451 - LAA growing number of West Coast cities are expanding workplace anti-discrimination laws to cover polyamorous and other “non-normative family and relationship structures” — including multi-partner, multi-parent, multi-generational, blended, and consensually non-monogamous relationships, as well as asexual and aromantic ones.
Three California cities have acted.
Oakland (effective April 16, 2024) is the only one with an explicit employment ordinance. Violations carry treble damages plus attorneys’ fees, with a three-year limitations period and cumulative remedies.
Berkeley and West Hollywood have similar ordinances but neither explicitly covers employment. Both prohibit discrimination in “business establishments,” and employees could argue that employment qualifies as a “privilege” of such an establishment — untested theory, but real litigation risk.
Learn More
In March 2026, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) overhauled its I-9 audit process, reclassifying routine paperwork errors as substantive violations carrying mandatory fines of roughly $2,500 per I-9.
These errors include dating errors, incomplete Section 2 entries, late document verification, missing Supplement B reverifications, and remote verification failures now trigger automatic liability. Each violation is a separate offense and the statute of limitations runs five years.
If there is concern that I-9 completion has not been fully compliant within your workplace, we recommend you audit I-9s to confirm accuracy.
Learn MoreEffective January 1, 2026, SB 642 significantly increases employer exposure by broadening the definition of “wages,” extending the limitations period, and expanding recoverable damages.
Key developments in equal pay law:
2016: The Fair Pay Act replaced the “equal work” standard with “substantially similar work” and tightened the bona fide factor defense.
2017–2018: Protections expanded to race and ethnicity. Employers were prohibited from relying on salary history and generally may not ask applicants about prior pay.
2023: Employers with 15 or more employees must include pay scales in job postings, including remote positions that could be filled in California.
2026 (SB 642): “Wages” now includes virtually all compensation, including bonuses, equity, benefits, and allowances. The statute of limitations extends to three years, and plaintiffs may recover up to six years of unpaid compensation.
If there is any question whether your business is compliant with this law, we recommend you:
• Conduct a privileged pay equity audit covering total compensation, not just base salary.
• Verify that all job postings include compliant pay scales.
• Ensure any pay differential is fully explained by a lawful factor, not just partially justified.
Since October 1, 2025, California’s Civil Rights Council regulations have treated many automated decision systems as part of the employer’s decision-making process under FEHA. Resume screeners, interview-scoring tools, “culture fit” assessments, and ad-targeting algorithms may all create risk if they contribute to a discriminatory outcome.
The regulations expressly apply to automated decision systems used in employment decisions, including third-party tools. That means “our software vendor handles that” is not much of a defense when the employer is relying on the tool to hire, promote, discipline, or terminate employees. Employers remain responsible for employment decisions even when a third-party vendor supplies the technology.
Two compliance issues deserve attention now.
First, recordkeeping. Employers generally must retain ADS-related records for at least four years. The same system that helps make employment decisions may also create the evidence used to challenge those decisions. This is consistent with my recommendation that all employee records be maintained for at least four years.
Second, anti-bias testing. The regulations specifically provide that evidence of anti-bias testing and other proactive efforts to avoid unlawful discrimination—and the absence of such evidence—may be relevant in determining whether an employer has engaged in unlawful discrimination. In practical terms, an employer that understands how its tools were tested, what was tested, and what corrective steps were taken starts the conversation from a much stronger position than an employer relying on a black box it cannot explain.
If your organization uses AI in recruiting, screening, promotion, or other employment decisions, take inventory of the tools, obtain the vendor’s testing information in writing, and evaluate whether your process would withstand a subpoena. Technology can improve efficiency. Used carelessly, it can also create risk.
Learn MoreTwo years ago, California employers scrambled to stand up a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan before SB 553 took effect. Then most of them filed the binder and never opened it again.
That’s the problem. Labor Code § 6401.9 isn’t one-and-done. It requires an annual plan review, annual interactive training tied to your actual plan, and documentation of workplace violence incidents—including threats, not just the punches that land. Cal/OSHA is now in its second year of enforcement. “We did a binder in 2024” is not a defense.
Two things employers keep getting wrong:
The plan has to be site-specific. A template pulled off the internet describes hazards you don’t have and ignores the ones you do. Labor Code section 6401.9 requires procedures tailored to the hazards and corrective measures for your work areas and operations.
And don’t forget the violent-incident log. It is separate from OSHA injury records and must document threats and other workplace violence incidents, even when no injury occurs.
And it gets harder soon. Cal/OSHA’s formal general-industry standard is working through the process now, with the Standards Board required to adopt it by December 31, 2026. When it lands, the bar rises.
Learn MoreCalifornia’s minimum wage in 2026 is not a single number — it’s a patchwork. The statewide floor is $16.50/hour, but fast food workers get $20 under AB 1228, healthcare workers are subject to tiered minimums reaching $23/hour under SB 525, and dozens of cities have local rates that exceed the state floor.
An employer who thinks “we pay above minimum wage” without checking the applicable rate for their industry and location is flying blind.
Overtime adds another layer. California requires daily overtime — time-and-a-half after 8 hours, double time after 12 — and the regular rate must include most bonuses and non-discretionary incentive pay. A bonus handed out to reward performance can retroactively increase every overtime hour worked during the bonus period.
Under PAGA, a single miscalculated pay stub replicated across a workforce over three or four years can generate seven-figure exposure before anyone files a complaint.
Learn MoreMost California employers know that terminated employees must receive all wages due immediately. What many do not realize is that compliance involves more than timing—it also involves how the final paycheck is delivered.
For involuntary terminations or resignations with notice, final wages generally must be available at the time of termination. If the separating employee quits without notice, employers have 72 hours to provide the final paycheck. lt can be handed directly to the employee, delivered to the location where the employee is discharged, or provided in another legally compliant manner.
Employers should be particularly careful about relying on direct deposit for final wages, as California’s final pay rules are more restrictive than many assume. A mistake can result in waiting time penalties equal to up to 30 days of the employee’s wages.
The takeaway: final paycheck compliance is not just a payroll issue. A well-intentioned employer can pay every dollar owed and still face penalties if the final wages are not delivered correctly.
Learn MoreMany California employers still think compliance means having a handbook with the right policies. Increasingly, that is no longer enough. One of the more significant trends developing in California employment law is the shift away from simple “policy compliance” toward detailed procedural compliance. In other words, employers are now expected not only to maintain legally compliant policies, but also to prove they were properly distributed, acknowledged, implemented, updated, and consistently followed in practice.
A surprising number of employers are discovering that even recently updated handbooks may already be outdated because newer California laws increasingly require standalone notices, specific timing requirements, multi-language distribution obligations, and documentation showing employees actually received the information.
This matters because plaintiffs’ attorneys are using these technical compliance failures more aggressively in wage and hour litigation and PAGA actions. In many cases, the exposure does not arise from intentional misconduct, but from administrative gaps that seemed minor at the time — an outdated notice, inconsistent pay practices, missing acknowledgments, or manager conduct that did not match the written policy.
One of the practical realities of California employment law in 2026 is that employers are judged less by what their handbook says and more by whether their day-to-day operations can withstand scrutiny.
Learn MoreUnder SB 261, effective January 1, 2026, employers that fail to satisfy a final wage judgment within 180 days after the appeal period expires may face civil penalties of up to three times the unpaid judgment amount, on top of the original judgment, interest, and attorneys’ fees.
The law also expands successor liability, making it far harder to avoid wage judgments through restructurings, asset transfers, or business sales. A few practical takeaways:
→ The 180-day clock starts when the appeal period ends — not when an employer decides it is done litigating.
→ Outstanding wage judgments are now a serious due diligence issue in mergers, acquisitions, and asset purchases.
→ Exposure can quickly become enormous. A $100,000 unpaid wage judgment could potentially turn into $400,000+ exposure before fees and interest are fully accounted for.
→ Half of the civil penalties go to employees, while the remainder funds state enforcement efforts. California is sending a very clear message: wage judgments are no longer ordinary civil debts that can sit unpaid indefinitely.
Learn MoreCalifornia is moving to tighten PAGA notice requirements, raising the bar for specificity before a claim can proceed. Proposed regulations from the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency would require employees to include detailed facts, legal theories, and identification of affected employees—curbing boilerplate notices.
The rules are not yet in effect (comment period closed March 2026), but likely later this year. Employers should evaluate every PAGA notice with their employment law counsel early and consider challenges to deficiencies.
Learn MoreMany employers require employees to agree in writing that any dispute will be resolved out of court by arbitration. However, The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act allows employees alleging sexual harassment or assault to elect to proceed in court notwithstanding a signed arbitration agreement.
Recent authority confirms that the statute is being applied broadly—often eliminating arbitration for entire lawsuits, not just harassment claims. In Casey v. Superior Court, the court held that where a complaint includes a qualifying harassment claim, the arbitration agreement is unenforceable as to all claims in the action, and employers cannot contract around that result.
This reflects a clear litigation trend heading into 2026: plaintiffs are using harassment allegations as a gateway to avoid arbitration altogether, and courts are largely permitting it.
Learn MoreEmployers should take any threat of workplace violence seriously. One tool to prevent violence is to seek a workplace restraining order. The practical reach of the California statute providing for Workplace Violence Restraining Orders, Code of Civ. Procedure § 527.8, is expanding. In County of Los Angeles v. Niblett, a California appellate court last year upheld a three-year restraining order based on aggressive, escalating conduct—including shouting, close physical intimidation, and references to workplace violence—without an explicit threat.
The decision confirms courts will act on credible intimidation and escalation patterns, not just overt threats.
Learn More
