On October 12, 2025, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 294, which requires employers in California to provide a stand-alone written notice of worker rights to each new employee when hired, and annually to all current employees. It also tasks the Labor Commissioner with developing and annually updating a template notice and related educational materials for California employees and employers.

This bill takes effect on January 1, 2026, and requires a template notice to be available on or before that date, which includes information on many areas of workers’ rights under state and federal law. Employers have until February 1, 2026, to provide the notice to employees and thereafter provide it annually.  

Under the law, employers must also allow employees to designate an emergency contact to be notified if the employee is arrested or detained at work or during work hours, and the employer has actual knowledge of the event. This part of the law must be implemented with all current employees by March 30, 2026.

The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors are authorized to enforce the law. Employers who fail to comply may face civil penalties of up to $500 per employee for each violation, and up to $10,000 per employee for certain violations (e.g., failure to notify emergency contacts). Employees, the Labor Commissioner, or public prosecutors may recover penalties, but employers are not subject to duplicative penalties.

If you have questions about compliance with SB 294 or related issues, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 513, which expands the scope of personnel documents employers must allow current and former employees to inspect.

Previously, under the California labor code, employers were required to allow current and former employees to inspect and receive a copy of personnel records the employer maintains relating to the employee’s performance or to any grievance concerning the employee. Under the amendment to the law, employers must also allow employees to inspect records pertaining to education or training that the employee received.

Such records must include all of the following:

  • The name of the employee
  • The name of the training provider
  • The duration and date of the training
  • The core competencies of the training, including skills in equipment or software
  • The resulting certification or qualification.

This law takes effect January 1, 2026.

If you have questions about SB 513 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

On October 8, 2025, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 642, which revised California’s Equal Pay Act.

Revisions to the Act will take effect January 1, 2026.

Under the amendment:

  • The definition of “pay scale” is revised to mean “a good faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage range  the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire.”
  • The definition of “sex” is aligned with other portions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
  • The definition of “wages” and “wage rates” is revised to include “all forms of pay, including but not limited to, salary, overtime pay, bonuses, stock, stock options, profit sharing and bonus plans, life insurance, vacation and holiday pay, cleaning and gasoline allowances, hotel accommodations, reimbursement for travel expenses, and benefits.”  
  • The right to obtain relief is limited to a total of six years.
  • There is new guidance on what constitutes a cause of action for violations of the California Equal Pay Act.

If you have questions about SB 642 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

California’s Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 53, which creates a comprehensive regulatory framework for advanced AI. The law takes effect January 1, 2026.

SB 53 is designed to govern what it calls “frontier” AI models, which are large, cutting-edge systems built by major developers with substantial resources. The central aim of the law is to balance these competing realities: encouraging innovation while protecting public safety and property from catastrophic risks.

Overview

Although SB 53 is directed at the developers of advanced AI systems, the law’s requirements will inevitably affect the businesses that depend on these technologies.

Under the law, developers must now publish a “frontier AI framework” that explains their risk management practices. They are also required to release transparency reports before introducing new or substantially updated models. These reports must contain detailed risk assessments, strategies for mitigation, and independent third-party evaluations.

In addition, the law imposes strict incident reporting obligations. If a developer discovers a “critical safety incident,” it must be reported within fifteen days. If the incident presents an imminent risk of death or serious injury, the report must be submitted within twenty-four hours. For employers, this means that AI vendors may need to temporarily adjust or even suspend services to comply with these requirements, potentially affecting continuity of business operations.

The legislation also imposes serious financial consequences for non-compliance. Any violation can result in civil penalties of up to one million dollars per instance, enforced by the Attorney General. Businesses that rely on AI providers should therefore be prepared for the possibility that vendors who fail to meet these standards could face enforcement actions that disrupt their services.

SB 53 introduces several important legal definitions that determine when these rules apply. A “frontier model” is defined by the amount of computing power used in its training, while “catastrophic risk” refers to scenarios that could cause mass casualties or more than one billion dollars in property damage. The law also identifies “critical safety incidents” as failures or risks that could threaten life or cause serious harm. These definitions are critical because they establish the threshold at which developers, and by extension their customers, are subject to the most stringent requirements.

Whistleblower Protections

Another significant component of SB 53 is its treatment of whistleblowers. The law protects employees who raise concerns about catastrophic risks or violations. These protections include strong anti-retaliation measures, anonymous reporting options, and the ability for employees to seek injunctive relief in court. For employers, this provision highlights the need to create internal reporting systems that allow employees to express concerns about AI use safely and without fear of reprisal. Failing to do so may not only undermine compliance but also damage workplace trust.

Preemption

The law is written to ensure that its provisions apply consistently across California. It preempts local regulations that might otherwise conflict and includes clauses to ensure broad application and resilience against legal challenges. In practice, this means employers can expect uniform rules across the state rather than a patchwork of differing local ordinances.

If you have questions about compliance with SB 53 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Governor Newsom has signed Assembly Bill (AB) 858, which extends the sunset date of the recall and reinstatement rights of employees laid off as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic until January 1, 2027.

In 2021, Senate Bill (SB) 93 was passed, which required certain employers in the hospitality and service industries to rehire employees laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

SB 93 applied to the following industries:

  • Hotels
  • Private clubs
  • Event Centers
  • Airport Hospitality Operations
  • Airport Service Providers
  • Building Services to office, retail, or other commercial buildings

In 2023, the expiration of the right of recall rights of employees in the hospitality and service industry was extended to December 31, 2025.

If you have questions about right of recall or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

On October 3, 2025, California’s Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1340 which establishes the Transportation Network Company Drivers Labor Relations Act (Act) which provides drivers for certain gig drivers with the right to form, join and participate in the activities of driver organizations, to bargain through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of bargaining or other mutual aid protection.

Under AB 1340, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) is tasked with administering the Act, including overseeing elections and determining unfair practices.

The Act will take effect January 1, 2026.

The Act defines a transportation network company or TNC as an organization that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application or platform to connect passengers with drivers using a personal vehicle.

On January 1, 2026, and every three months thereafter, TNCs must submit to PERB a list of information for drivers who have completed at least 20 rides in California within the preceding six months, including their most recent email address, driver’s license number, phone number, mailing and local residence addresses, platform joining date, and number of rides completed. PERB will then, within two weeks, compile a list of drivers who have completed the median number of drives or more and deem those drivers as active TNC drivers.

TNC driver organizations can trigger an election by presenting PERB with a 10% showing of interest among active TNC drivers, and within 30 days PERB will determine if this showing meets the 10% threshold. If this showing of interest is met, within 30 days of PERB’s determination (and on the 15th of every January, April, July, and October, PERB will provide the drivers union with the list of active TNCs; moreover, within 30 days of PERB’s determination, the TNC must send a notice to its active TNC drivers that the union is trying to organize and represent TNC drivers.

Covered TNCs will be required to negotiate sector-wide agreements with certified driver organizations. These agreements must address issues like these agreement must address issues like appealing the deactivation of a driver, paid leave, safety standards, and grievance procedures. Importantly, agreements cannot reduce minimum driver guarantees or alter drivers’ independent contractor status.

If you have questions about AB 1340 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis Attorney to discuss.

A good development for employers from the district court. At the beginning of the year, Senate Bill (SB) 399 became effective, restricting employers from requiring participation in mandatory meetings addressing religious or political topics, including those concerning labor organizations. Shortly thereafter, several business groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB 399 and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

Recently, the district court issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily prohibiting the enforcement of SB 399. The court determined that SB 399 is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to the extent that it restricts employers from mandating attendance at meetings regarding unionization. Additionally, the court ruled that SB 399 constitutes a content-based regulation of speech, as it specifically targets employer communications on subjects such as religious or political matters.

Enforcement of SB 399 will remain suspended until litigation at the district court level concludes and may potentially be permanently enjoined based on the final outcome.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor developments in this case. For questions related to SB 399 or similar matters, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney for further discussion.

On October 1, 2025, California’s Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 303, which states that an employee’s assessment, testing, admission, or acknowledgment of their own personal bias, when made in good faith and solicited or required as part of a bias mitigation training, does not, by itself, constitute unlawful discrimination. This law amends the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which requires employers to prevent workplace discrimination, including providing specified harassment prevention training.

The stated purpose of the law is to encourage employers to conduct bias mitigation training and to affirm that conducting such training does not, by itself, constitute unlawful discrimination.

This law will take effect on January 1, 2026. For questions about SB 303, bias training, or related matters, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney for more information.

California’s labor landscape is changing with the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 288, which expands both worker rights and the authority of the state’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). Employers should be aware of these changes, as they may impact workplace policies, union interactions, and the handling of labor disputes.

PERB is a state agency that has traditionally overseen labor relations for public sector employees in California. The agency is viewed as very pro-employee, and more so than the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which is its federal counterpart.  PERB administers and enforces laws related to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices for public employees, such as teachers and state workers. With AB 288, PERB’s authority is now extended to certain private-sector workers under specific circumstances.

Expanded Worker Rights

AB 288 reaffirms and broadens California workers’ rights to organize, join, and support labor organizations, and to engage in collective bargaining. These rights are now explicitly protected under state law, and the law requires that any restrictions must serve a compelling state interest and use the least restrictive means possible.

Employers should be even more cautious about actions or policies that could be seen as interfering with employees’ rights to organize or bargain collectively.

PERB’s New Role in the Private Sector

Historically, private-sector labor relations have been governed by federal law and the NLRB. AB 288 changes this by empowering PERB to step in and enforce labor rights for private-sector workers in California when federal protections are unavailable or ineffective. This is a significant expansion of PERB’s authority and is consistent with other legislation around the country, such as New York.

PERB can now:

  • Process union representation petitions and certify exclusive bargaining representatives.
  • Investigate and decide unfair labor practice charges.
  • Order remedies, including requiring employers to bargain, submit to binding, or comply with other orders.
  • Impose civil penalties for patterns or practices of unfair labor practices.
  • Maintain confidentiality of sensitive documentation and evidence.

PERB is directed to interpret the law in a way that most expansively protects worker rights, and while it may consider federal precedents, it is not bound by them.

PERB’s new authority is not automatic but triggered by specific circumstances, including:

  • If federal protections under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) are repealed, narrowed, or enforcement is blocked, and the worker is not covered by other labor laws.
  • If the NLRB is unable or unwilling to act, such as:
    • Lack of a functioning NLRB quorum.
    • Significant delays in processing cases
    • Failure to act on union certification or unfair labor practice complaints within specified timeframes.

Once PERB jurisdiction is triggered, it retains authority over the matter unless a court orders otherwise. The law also sets out expedited timelines for certain types of cases, such as those involving refusal to bargain or active organizing campaigns.

A similar law was recently passed by the State of New York and is being challenged by the NLRB on preemption grounds. It is likely the NLRB will also challenge AB 288 on preemption as well.

If you have questions about AB 288 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Governor Newsom has signed Senate Bill (SB) 617, which expands the information employers are required to include under the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (CalWARN). Employers are now required to state whether they plan to coordinate services for affected employees through the local workforce development board (LWDB), another entity, or not at all. Regardless of their choice, employers must provide the LWDB’s contact information and a description of its services in the notice.

The new requirements under SB 617 will take effect January 1, 2026.

Employers should remember that CalWARN imposes broader and more stringent requirements than federal WARN. While federal WARN applies to employers with 100 or more full-time employees, CalWARN covers establishments with as few as 75 employees, including part-time staff.

CalWARN also triggers notice obligations for a wider range of events: it requires 60 days’ advance notice for any plant closures, layoffs of 50 or more employees, regardless of workforce percentage, and relocations of at least 100 miles affecting any number of employees. In contrast, federal WARN only applies to plant closings or mass layoffs involving 50 or more employees and, in some cases, only if they constitute at least 33% of the workforce at a site of employment.

Additionally, CalWARN mandates notice to more local entities, including the LWDB and city and county officials, whereas federal WARN requires notice to employees, their representatives, the state dislocated worker unit, and the chief local elected government official.

The exceptions available under CalWARN are also more limited than those available under federal WARN.

If you have questions about SB 617 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.