Just as the deciduous trees turn autumn orange and the pumpkin lattes start sloshing about, our busy-bee lawmakers in Sacramento have unveiled a whole new slate of rules and regulations to further finetune the workplaces of California! (Perhaps this year, they’ll finally get it “just right”!)
Here’s their latest handiwork:
| Summary & Impact on Employers | Law |
| Workplace Know Your Rights Act. By February 1, 2026 |
Ah, California: land of Hollywood, high-tech, empty ocean roads, and—all too often these days—eye-popping jury verdicts. Employment litigation in California now rivals the state lottery as a source of multimillion-dollar payouts. We’ve previously reported on some of the more astonishing numbers (see here, here, and here), but they are only the tip of the iceberg.
Recent cases have led to single-plaintiff jury
Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers, Inc., 2025 WL 2351203 (9th Cir. 2025)
Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa filed two putative class actions against her employer (Sunsweet Growers), alleging various wage and hour violations under California law, including PAGA. Renteria-Hinojosa’s employment was governed by two successive collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between her union and Sunsweet. In response to the lawsuits, Sunsweet removed both actions to federal court, asserting federal
Hirdman v. Charter Commc’ns, LLC, 113 Cal. App. 5th 376 (2025)
Bradley Hirdman filed a lawsuit against his former employer (Charter Communications, LLC) alleging a violation of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) based on Charter’s alleged misclassification of Hirdman as an exempt outside salesperson for purposes of calculating his paid sick leave pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 246(l)(3). The trial court
Iloff v. LaPaille, 18 Cal. 5th 551 (2025)
Laurence Iloff performed maintenance on various structures that were located on property that was owned by Bridgeville Properties, Inc. and managed by Cynthia LaPaille. Under an informal arrangement, Iloff’s employers allowed him to live rent-free in one of the houses on the property but did not provide him any other benefits or compensation for his
Bronshteyn v. Department of Consumer Affairs, 2025 WL 2658416 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Diana Bronshteyn, who was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, sued her employer (the Department of Consumer Affairs) for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate her disability and related claims. According to the Court of Appeal, “the Department fought the case hard from the start.” Among other things, the Department unsuccessfully opposed Bronshteyn’s motion for
Lister v. City of Las Vegas, 148 F.4th 690 (9th Cir. 2025)
Latonia Lister sued the City of Las Vegas for sex- and/or race-based employment discrimination under Title VII. Lister was the city’s first African American female firefighter who had worked for the city in that capacity for almost 30 years. Lister alleged that while she was on duty and under the
McMahon v. World Vision, Inc., 147 F.4th 959 (9th Cir. 2025)
World Vision, a religious organization, revoked a job offer it had made to Aubry McMahon to be a remote customer service representative after learning that McMahon was married to a same-sex partner. McMahon sued for discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation and marital status under Title VII and Washington state law.
Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 2025 WL 2629868 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Sylvia Noland asserted 25 causes of action against her former employer, including claims for wrongful termination, PAGA and other Labor Code violations, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. The employer filed a successful motion for summary judgment, which resulted in dismissal of the case. In the appellate