On September 27, 2026, the Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1803, which adds a component of anti-hate speech to harassment prevention training requirements.

Existing California Training Requirements

California employers with five or more employees must provide at least two hours of harassment prevention training to supervisory employees and at least one hour of training to nonsupervisory employees in California every two years. New nonsupervisory employees generally must be trained within six months of hire, and new supervisory employees must be trained within six months of assuming a supervisory position.

The required training currently must address sexual harassment, the prevention of abusive conduct, and harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

What AB 1803 Adds

Beginning January 1, 2028, AB 1803 requires employers to include “anti-hate speech training” as a component of their existing harassment prevention training.

Specifically, the training must provide supervisors and employees with practical guidance on recognizing, reporting, and confronting workplace speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against individuals based on characteristics protected under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Those characteristics include race, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, disability, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decision-making, and veteran or military status, among others.

AB 1803 does not increase the existing one- and two-hour training requirements or require employers to conduct a separate training course. Instead, employers may incorporate the new content into their existing harassment prevention programs.

The bill also provides that training satisfies the new requirement if it includes information about both the prohibition against unlawful harassment and the prevention of abusive conduct based on FEHA-protected characteristics. As a result, some employers’ existing programs may already address some or all of the required content. Employers should, however, review the actual course materials rather than assume compliance, particularly if their current training focuses primarily on sex-based harassment or addresses abusive conduct only in general terms.

AB 1803 amends the statute governing training requirements. It does not amend FEHA’s substantive standards for determining when workplace conduct constitutes unlawful harassment. Employers should therefore ensure their training accurately explains the difference between conduct that may be inappropriate or violate company policy and conduct that may also constitute unlawful harassment.

Steps Employers Should Take

Before January 1, 2028, covered employers should review internally developed and third-party training programs to confirm that they:

  • Address workplace speech related to the full range of FEHA-protected characteristics;
  • Include practical examples and guidance on recognizing, reporting, and appropriately responding to such conduct;
  • Clearly identify the employer’s reporting channels and supervisors’ reporting obligations; and
  • Are consistent with the employer’s harassment prevention policy and complaint procedures.

Employers should also confirm that any training delivered on or after January 1, 2028, incorporates the required content.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers with reviewing and updating harassment prevention training programs and related workplace policies. If you have questions about AB 1803 or other training requirements, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 1149, which adds “designated person” to the definition of family member for the purpose of taking bereavement leave. In 2022, the state amended the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) to require covered employers to provide eligible employees with 5 days of bereavement leave. Bereavement leave is generally unpaid unless the employer has an existing policy that provides for paid leave or if the employee has accrued leave, including vacation time or sick leave that they elect to use.

SB1149 builds on the right by expanding the definition of family under the law. Under the amendment, “designated person” means any individual related to the employee by blood or whose association is equivalent to a family relationship. An employee may identify the designated person at the time they request leave but may be limited to one designated person per 12-month period for bereavement leave.

SB 1149 takes effect January 1, 2027.

If you have questions about SB 1149 or related issues, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Cal/OSHA recently released a discussion draft proposing major amendments to its heat illness prevention standards under Assembly Bill (AB) 2243, affecting both outdoor workplaces (Title 8, Section 3395) and indoor workplaces (Section 3396).

If adopted, these changes would expand employer obligations. The most impactful change is the elimination of the industry-specific exemption for high-heat procedures. Currently, only employers in agriculture, construction, landscaping, oil and gas extraction, and certain transportation and delivery operations must comply with subsection (e)’s high-heat requirements when temperatures hit 95 degrees Fahrenheit.

Under the proposed rule, every outdoor employer would be subject to high-heat procedures regardless of industry.

Acclimatization Revisions

The draft reworks the acclimatization framework. The close-observation requirement now extends beyond newly assigned employees to include workers returning after an absence of more than 14 days.

Employers must choose between two compliance approaches during the 14-day observation period: daily pre-shift meetings covering acclimatization procedures, hydration, and emergency protocols, or a graduated exposure schedule that limits a new employee’s heat exposure to 20% on day one, ramping up to 80% by day four (returning employees start at 50%).

Law enforcement, firefighting, and emergency response personnel must use the graduated exposure approach when their new or returning employees participate in high-intensity training. There is an exception where employers can demonstrate the employee already worked under similar conditions for the prior 14 days.

Prevention Plans and Wearable Technology

Under the proposed changes, employers would be required to distribute the plan to new hires, during training, and to all employees at least annually. An online posting in English that is in an easily translated format is permitted as an alternative to physical distribution.

The regulations would authorize Cal/OSHA to require employers to deploy wearable technology that monitors workers’ physiological responses to heat stress as part of an Order to Take Special Action. Any such order would require employers to keep health data secure and prohibit its use for discriminatory purposes.

These proposed changes remain in discussion draft form, but employers should consider now a good time to review their heat injury and illness plans and procedures.

If you have questions about California heat injury and illness requirements or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

San Francisco has finalized amendments to the city’s Paid Parental Leave Ordinance. The most significant change: employees will now qualify for employer-paid parental leave benefits after just 90 days of employment, down from the prior 180-day requirement.

Who Is Covered?

The ordinance applies to employers who regularly employ 20 or more employees anywhere in the world, regardless of where those employees work. A company is a “Covered Employer” if it meets this threshold, and the amended rules will govern leave eligibility for any employee who:

  • Works at least eight hours per week within San Francisco’s geographic boundaries,
  • Performs at least 40% of their total weekly work hours within the city, and
  • Qualifies for California Paid Family Leave benefits for purposes of bonding with a new child.

This includes part-time and temporary workers, provided they meet the above criteria.

Eligibility Window

Under the prior ordinance, employees had to be employed for 180 days before becoming eligible for the supplemental parental leave pay provided by their employer. The amendments to the ordinance reduce that waiting period to 90 days.

The amendments to the ordinance include transition provisions to preserve the 180-day requirement for employers based on size during a limited phase-in period:

  • Employers with 100 or more employees: 180-day rule applies through December 31, 2026
  • Employers with 20–99 employees: 180-day rule applies through December 31, 2027

Once these transition windows close, the 90-day standard applies uniformly to all covered employers.

Overview of Ordinance

San Francisco’s Paid Parental Leave Ordinance works in tandem with California’s state Paid Family Leave program. The state provides partial wage replacement funded through employee payroll contributions; San Francisco requires covered employers to supplement that state benefit so that the employee receives 100% of their regular wages during up to eight weeks of bonding leave. The amendments do not change the existing cap on the maximum additional employer payment.

Employers must:

  1. Verify that the employee meets the 90-day (or applicable transition-period) tenure threshold,
  2. Confirm the employee qualifies for California Paid Family Leave benefits,
  3. Calculate and pay the difference between the state benefit amount and the employee’s full weekly wage, and
  4. Maintain any required documentation from the employee and the state program.

The ordinance does not create a separate job-protected leave; it requires wage supplementation for employees who are already eligible for state Paid Family Leave and meet the city’s tenure and hours-worked criteria.

If you have questions about compliance with San Francisco’s Paid Parental Leave Ordinance or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

On August 3, 2026, the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) released modified proposed regulatory text as part of its ongoing rulemaking under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The modifications follow a public comment period that closed on March 23, 2026, and a public hearing held on April 9, 2026, and are now subject to an additional 15-day comment period.

Notable changes to the original proposed regulations include:

  1. Stricter Rules for Post-Settlement Amendments

The original regulations prohibited claimants from amending a PAGA notice to add new alleged violations after reaching a proposed settlement. The modified text takes a step back from an across-the-board ban; rather than barring post-settlement amendments altogether, the modified text allows post-settlement amendments if the claimant provides the following additional information to the LWDA: (i) a list of the specific Labor Code sections allegedly violated, with an indication of which sections are new; (ii) a statement of specific facts supporting the newly alleged violations; (iii) a statement of the investigation or discovery conducted for each newly asserted violation; (iv) a statement describing the manner in which the claimant personally suffered each newly asserted violation; and (v) a statement describing how the worker-protection purposes of PAGA and the interests of justice are furthered by the amendment. 

  1. “Vexatious Filers” Replaced with “Non-Compliant Filers”

One of the most notable revisions is the renaming of the “vexatious filer” designation to “non-compliant filer” throughout the regulations. The modified text also refines the definition: rather than requiring that an attorney have “repeatedly filed” non-compliant PAGA notices, it sets a specific threshold of three or more non-compliant filings within a 12-month period and requires that the filer have “continued to file non-compliant notices after warning by the Agency.” The designation matters because it subjects the filer to additional scrutiny and procedural consequences under the regulations, making the criteria for imposing it particularly significant.

  1. Separate Attorney and Law Firm Thresholds for High-Frequency Filers

The original proposed regulations defined a “high-frequency filer” as any attorney or law firm that filed 200 or more PAGA notices in the preceding 12 months. The modified text now creates two separate thresholds: an individual attorney filing 100 or more notices during the same period, or a law firm filing 200 or more notices during the same period. The designation is significant because high-frequency filers are subject to additional requirements and scrutiny under the regulations, so the revised thresholds expand the circumstances in which an individual attorney may be subject to those heightened obligations.

  1. New Approach to Law Firm Accountability

The original regulations gave the LWDA discretion to extend a prefiling screening order to a non-compliant filer’s entire law firm. The modified text replaces this approach with a cover letter certification requirement: attorneys at firms where one or more colleagues have been designated as non-compliant filers must certify that the designated attorney was not involved in preparing, filing, or handling the matter. Failure to provide the required certification may serve as grounds for a non-compliant filer designation.

  1. New Agency Authority to Flag Deficient Notices

The modified regulations include a new provision authorizing the LWDA to provide written notice to claimants of deficiencies in their PAGA notices. The deficiency notice will identify how the notice fails to comply with applicable requirements and give the claimants up to 30 days to amend their PAGA notices. Importantly, the LWDA’s failure to issue such a notice does not constitute an endorsement of the PAGA notice’s sufficiency.

  1. Enhanced Settlement Submission Requirements

Several new requirements apply to proposed PAGA settlements submitted to the LWDA. These include a properly noticed motion with a memorandum of points and authorities explaining the penalty-valuation methodology, a statement of compliance with litigation-reporting obligations, and a copy of any notice of related cases. Parties must also include a copy of the settlement itself and verify compliance with the regulations’ requirements in court submissions.

**************

These modifications and additions to the regulations are subject to a 15-day public comment window. Written comments may be submitted by mail or email to the LWDA.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as the rulemaking process continues.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has announced that California’s statewide minimum wage will increase from $16.90 to $17.40 per hour effective January 1, 2027. The new rate, announced on July 31, 2026, reflects the annual inflation-based adjustment required under California law.

The increase will also affect the minimum salary threshold for employees classified as exempt under California’s executive, administrative, and professional exemptions. Effective January 1, 2027, exempt employees generally must earn a salary of at least $72,384 annually ($1,392 per week). This is an increase from the 2026 threshold of $70,304 annually ($1,352 per week).

Satisfaction of the minimum salary threshold alone does not establish that an employee is exempt. The increase provides a useful opportunity to confirm that employees classified as exempt continue to satisfy the applicable duties and all other requirements for the exemption being claimed.

The statewide increase also highlights the need to evaluate all applicable wage requirements, not just the state minimum wage. Numerous California cities and counties maintain minimum wage rates that exceed the statewide rate, and employees must be paid in accordance with the highest applicable minimum wage. Additionally, businesses in the fast-food and health care industry should also verify compliance with industry-specific wage requirements.

Certain occupations remain subject to separate compensation requirements. For example, California Labor Code section 515.5 establishes distinct hourly and salary compensation requirements for certain exempt computer software employees, which are adjusted annually.

Employers with questions about California minimum wage requirements, employee classifications, or the impact of the upcoming minimum wage increase should contact a Jackson Lewis attorney.

As children head back to school, California employees may need time away from work for school activities, childcare emergencies, disciplinary meetings, or to care for a sick child. Employers should keep the following California leave protections in mind for the 2026–2027 school year.

School and Childcare Activity Leave

California Labor Code Section 230.8 applies to employers with 25 or more employees working at the same location. It provides certain leave entitlements to employees who are “parents” of children attending kindergarten through grade 12, or a licensed childcare provider.

For purposes of this law, a “parent” includes a parent, guardian, stepparent, foster parent, grandparent, or person who stands in loco parentis to a child.

Eligible employees may take up to 40 hours each year for either of the following purposes:

  • Finding, enrolling, or re-enrolling a child in school or with a licensed childcare provider, or participating in school or childcare activities; or
  • Addressing a school or childcare emergency.

Time off for planned activities generally may not exceed eight hours in a calendar month. The monthly limit does not apply to time taken to address a school or childcare emergency.

Employees must provide reasonable advance notice of planned absences and notice of emergency absences. Employers may also request reasonable documentation from the school or childcare provider showing that the employee participated in a covered activity on a particular date and time.

For planned absences, employees generally must use available vacation, personal leave, or compensatory time off. Employees may use unpaid time only to the extent the employer makes it available. Accordingly, Section 230.8 does not require employers to create a separate bank of paid or unpaid leave.

Suspension or Expulsion Meetings

California Labor Code Section 230.7 applies to employers of all sizes. It prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against an employee who is the parent or guardian of a student for taking time off to appear at the student’s school at the school’s request under California Education Code Section 48900.1.

The employee must provide reasonable advance notice that the school has requested the employee’s appearance. Employees who experience prohibited discrimination may be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and benefits.

Paid Sick Leave to Care for a Child

If parents need time for their children’s physicals or when they bring home the latest illness circulating at school, eligible employees may use accrued California paid sick leave for the diagnosis, care, or treatment of a child’s existing health condition or for preventive care. This can include attending a medical appointment or caring for a child who is ill.

California employers must provide at least five days or 40 hours of paid sick leave per year.

Employers should also determine whether a local paid sick leave ordinance applies. Where a local ordinance provides a more generous benefit, employers generally must comply with the more protective requirement, subject to limited areas in which state law preempts conflicting local rules.

Employers should review their leave policies, manager training, and notice procedures before the school year begins and ensure that requests involving school activities, childcare emergencies, disciplinary meetings, and a child’s illness or other preventative care are evaluated under all potentially applicable laws.

If you have questions about California leave requirements or related workplace issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney.

Recently, San Francisco amended its Fair Chance Ordinance (FCO) to further differentiate it from the State of California’s Fair Chance Act. The amendments take effect on August 10, 2026.

The FCO applies to employers located or doing business in San Francisco with five or more employees. Like the state Fair Chance Act, it bars covered employers from asking about arrest or conviction records before a conditional offer and from considering certain records, including arrests that did not result in a conviction.

The FCO also requires covered employers to:

  • Allow individuals to present mitigating evidence before adverse action based on conviction history or an unresolved arrest.
  • State in job postings that qualified applicants with arrest or conviction records will be considered.

Employers also must conspicuously post the official FCO Notice at each workplace/job site under their control.

Amendments

Under the amendments, employers may no longer use certain out-of-state convictions or unresolved arrests as a basis for adverse employment decisions where the underlying conduct is lawful under California law and related to:

  • Abortion-related healthcare
  • Drag performances
  • Gender-affirming care
  • Spontaneous abortion.

The amendments also increase administrative penalties for violations.

If you have questions about the amendments to the San Francisco FCO or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

California Labor Code section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for necessary expenses incurred in performing their job duties, which may include an employee’s use of their personal vehicle for work purposes, such as for work-related travel or driving between work sites.

When determining how to reimburse an employee for use of their personal vehicle, employers may select between different methods for reimbursement, including actual expense, mileage reimbursement, or a stipend.

The California Labor Commissioner has opined that the use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) mileage rate will generally satisfy an employer’s obligation to reimburse employees for the expenses incurred in the use of an employee’s car for work purposes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Usually, the IRS announces any changes to the mileage allowance rate in the fall in connection with increases to take place at the beginning of the year. However, in response to recent increases in fuel prices, the IRS  announced on July 13, 2026, that it would increase the business travel mileage rate to 76 cents per mile, effective July 1, 2026. This is a special adjustment for the final six months of 2026.  Employers who reimburse using the mileage reimbursement method should consider increasing their reimbursement rate accordingly.

If you have questions about mileage reimbursement or related issues, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

August 13, 2026 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM PST

Join Jackson Lewis P.C. attorneys in reviewing mid-year updates to California employment law. We will provide an overview of important case rulings, statutory developments thus far in 2026 and significant pending legislation California employers should be watching for this legislative season. This program will benefit HR professionals, risk managers, in-house counsel and insurance professionals.

Click Here to Register.