(323) 652-9451 - LA(628) 230-6920 - SFO
(805) 845-1752 - SBA
(323) 652-9451 - LATwo 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 MoreOn March 23rd, a jury in the Los Angeles Superior Court returned a verdict in favor of our client, Skilled Wound Care, against its former employee. The successful claims included misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective advantage and breach of contract.
Learn MoreMany nonprofits must rely on individuals volunteering their time in lieu of a paid staff. Last month, a California appellate court, in Spilman v. The Salvation Army, adopted the following two-part test to relieve nonprofits of potential wage and hour liability:
Did the worker freely agree to serve for personal or charitable purposes, not compensation, and is the nonprofit’s use of unpaid labor a subterfuge to evade wage laws.
Learn MoreI previously boasted how much our firm is leveraging AI to provide our clients greater efficiency and most savings.
This is only half the story. Although we were early adopters of AI technology for improving our practice, and we believe it will transform the practice of law (and everything else), we have serious trust issues with AI bots–and you should too!
To say that AI occasionally gives us wildly incorrect information is a major understatement. If employers rely too heavily on AI without having a working, up-to-date knowledge of federal, state and local employment laws, or without fully confirming accuracy of the advice, the risks are huge.
So, we caution employers against using AI alone to make important employment law-related decisions, at least as the technology currently exists. Pick up the phone and confirm or clarify with us that the advice you are getting from your AI bot will help, not hurt you.
Learn MoreLike everyone, we are awestruck by this thing called Artificial Intelligence (AI). It’s crazy, right? Civilization is turning a page.
We first want to share with our clients that we leverage AI responsibly, ethically and judiciously to enhance efficiency and reduce attorney fees wherever possible. We use AI to assist in conducting preliminary legal research, early document drafting, revision, and strategy development.
We aim to save our clients as much as 20% of attorney fees over the year by our incorporation of AI into our practice. As AI evolves, we will evolve with it and continue to pass savings on to our clients.
Learn More
