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 |
A California court recently threw the book at some lawyers for relying on artificial intelligence (“AI”) to generate what turned out to be fabricated citations and misstated authorities—that is, so-called “AI hallucinations.”
In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., a leasing agent/sales representative alleged no fewer than 25 claims, including violations of California’s wage and hour laws and wrongful termination. The trial court
In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98—a do-or-die statute requiring employers to pay arbitration fees within 30 days or waive the right to arbitrate altogether—is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). While it is not the precise outcome employers may have hoped for, many employers are correctly viewing the decision as
The California Civil Rights Council, which promulgates regulations that implement California’s civil rights laws, has published a new set of regulations concerning artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the workplace. These new rules (available here) are set to go into effect on October 1, 2025 and amend the existing regulatory framework of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). This latest round of regulations is continuing a trend
As we reported here, a split in authority has developed in the California Court of Appeal regarding what to do when an employer moves to compel arbitration of a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that is “headless”—that is, a claim seeking penalties on behalf of all allegedly aggrieved employees except the named plaintiff. (This is the latest trick the plaintiff’s bar has come up
As we have reported time and again, California courts have applied extra scrutiny to employee arbitration agreements in recent years, and have not hesitated to deny arbitration where there is a reasonable basis for doing so. This trend demands that employers be vigilant and update arbitration agreements when developments in the law implicate them. In the recent case of Ford v. The Silver F,
On February 26, 2025, in Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation, Inc., the California Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District) issued the latest published decision addressing the practice of filing so-called “headless” Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims. In such cases, the plaintiff seeks civil penalties for all allegedly aggrieved employees except themself. In the wake of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596
The California Court of Appeal recently reminded employers in an unpublished (but nonetheless chastening) opinion of the importance of carefully drafting arbitration agreements. In Pich v. LaserAway, LLC et al, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the employer’s motion to compel a former employee’s representative wage-and-hour suit to arbitration because the arbitration agreement in question was signed only by the employee—not the employer.
Wildfires continue to rage across Southern California, leveling entire neighborhoods, forcing evacuations for tens of thousands of people, and posing incredible hardship on businesses and their employees. Below are a few common scenarios employers should know about paying their California employees and maintaining compliance with wage and hour laws:
“Our office was closed for a few days because of the fires. Do we have to
In yet another attempt to avoid arbitration agreements, plaintiffs’ lawyers in the wake of the blockbuster court decisions in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana and Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. began filing so-called “headless” claims for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). In such cases, the plaintiff seeks civil penalties for all allegedly aggrieved employees except themself. Thus, these