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.

In July, the City of Los Angeles put the minimum wage increase for hotel workers on hold.  Certain provisions were to take effect on July 1, 2025. The decision to pause the ordinance came after a referendum petition against the ordinance was filed with the City Clerk’s office on June 27, 2025.

On September 8, 2025, the City Clerk issued a determination that the referendum petition filed was insufficient. Pursuant to the City Charter, the Ordinance goes into effect on the date the Certification of Insufficiency is issued, meaning the minimum wage takes effect on September 8th.

For more information, you can check out the City of Los Angeles website on hotel worker ordinances. If you have questions about compliance with this ordinance or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

On August 21, 2025, the Mayor of Long Beach approved an ordinance requiring staffing for self-checkout at drug retail establishments and grocery stores. The ordinance will go into effect on September 21, 2025, the 31st day after the Mayor’s approval.

As previously reported, the ordinance covers drug retail establishments and food retail establishments as defined in the ordinance. Covered stores are required to have at least one employee supervise the self-service checkout operation at all times and not be assigned to perform any other work during that timeframe. If a store has 2 or more self-checkout stations, the store must maintain staffing ratios of at least one employee for every 3 self-service stations.

Covered stores must also have at least one non-self-service checkout station staffed by an employee who is available during times when self-service is available. The ordinance also restricts what can be purchased at self-service stations.

If you have questions about compliance with Long Beach’s new ordinance or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis Attorney to discuss.

California’s Department of Finance recently announced the minimum wage increase for 2026. The minimum wage in California will increase from $16.50 per hour to $16.90 perhour on January 1, 2026. This increase applies to all employers, regardless of size. This increase is based on the state’s annual cost-of-living adjustment tied to the U.S. Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), subject to a cap of 3.5% or the actual CPI-W increase, whichever is lower, as provided under Labor Code §1182.12(c).

Additionally, the minimum salary for full-time exempt employees will increase from $68,640 to $70,304 per year on January 1, 2026, in accordance with California’s requirement that exempt employees must earn at least twice the state minimum wage for full-time work (40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year).

However, employers should be aware that numerous cities and industries across the state have separate minimum wages, which are typically higher than the state minimum wage. Additionally, exemptions, such as the computer software employee’s exemption under California Labor Code Section 515.5, may exist for occupations and come with their own elevated compensation thresholds.

If you have questions about California’s minimum wage or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court addressed whether California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which requires the party that drafted the arbitration agreement to pay arbitration fees within 30 days of the due date or face consequences such as forfeiting arbitration rights, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

The Court held that section 1281.98 is not preempted by the FAA but clarified that courts should not apply the statute as a rigid, automatic forfeiture rule – as many courts had been doing. Instead, courts may excuse late payments or nonpayments that are not willful, grossly negligent, fraudulent, or due to impossibility. 

For employers, this means that while timely payment of arbitration fees remains critical, an inadvertent or excusable delay will not automatically result in the loss of the right to arbitrate. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind section 1281.98 was to deter strategic nonpayment of fees that could stall or obstruct arbitration, not to penalize honest mistakes or excusable neglect. That said, employers should be prepared to demonstrate good faith and a lack of willfulness for any late payment or nonpayment if they seek relief from the arbitration forfeiture provisions of section 1281.98.

Ultimately, this decision provides some flexibility to employers but reinforces the importance of diligent compliance with arbitration fee obligations to avoid unnecessary litigation over the right to arbitrate.

If you have questions about the application of this case or related arbitration issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The recent tragic attack at an office building in New York and the loss and pain felt by its survivors and those affected leave many employers wondering what more they can do to protect their employees and locations. In California, most businesses must have a comprehensive Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (WVPP) as a result of a law passed in the aftermath of an active shooter incident. Employers’ WVPPs must include numerous provisions specifically designed to prepare for that specific threat.

Two WVPP requirements are coordination and communication. Employers must “coordinate . . . the plan with other employers, when applicable, to ensure that those employers and employees understand their respective roles . . . .” Each WVPP must also contain procedures to communicate with employees, alerting them to “the presence, location, and nature of workplace violence emergencies.”

The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has issued a WVPP model plan and draft proposed regulations, but neither document provides detailed recommendations on how to coordinate a WVPP with another employer or effective emergency communications. This is mostly due to the variety of business types and locations—what works for a standalone retailer will not work for an office building or a construction site. The list of “work practice controls” in Cal/OSHA’s new proposed draft regulation, which essentially mirrors the Model WVPP’s list of workplace hazards and corrections, may offer insight into what employers, especially those in dense locations such as high-rises and office buildings, should consider when coordinating efforts and determining how to best communicate a threat.

First, employers must identify their team member responsible for the WVPP, as required by law, to begin coordinating efforts. Employers should put that person in touch with their counterparts at other relevant locations. For instance, in a high-rise or office building, the relevant counterparts are likely the building manager and the security company. Security professionals often discuss a strategy of “defense in depth” or “rings” that reinforce each other and provide a bulwark if the outer rings are penetrated. In an office building, employers should coordinate with the management and security company on how they will recognize and respond to threats at the outermost ring, and how their security, such as automated security software or other security features, could send information or warnings to tenants.

Second, effective coordination requires thoughtful contingency planning. If building management and security respond to an incident by locking down elevators or exterior doors, consider how this information will reach others. If they lock the elevators and an active shooter enters a stairwell, think about how others will know, so employees can be advised of the best way to protect themselves.

Finally, in an emergency, employers’ communication needs to be simple and effectively reach employees. Communications about threats must convey the presence, location, and nature of the emergency, both to be legally compliant and practically useful. Software and hardware solutions to communicate in an emergency are available, so consider a communication solution that would work in the real world. For example, if the plan is to have the person at the front desk sound an alarm, do the hard but necessary thought-experiment of what happens if that person is unable to alert others.  

Ultimately, there is no substitute for the time-consuming and mentally (and emotionally) exhausting work of preparing for what if. Employers should keep in mind that the law also requires employers to review their WVPP annually.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to provide advice and training on workplace violence prevention plans and workplace violence.

The City of Long Beach introduced a new ordinance aimed at curbing retail theft and improving safety in grocery and drug stores that use self-service checkout stations.

The ordinance applies to “drug retail establishments” and “food retail establishments.”

“Drug retail establishments” are defined as a retail store that sells a variety of prescription and non-prescription medicines and miscellaneous items.

“Food retail establishments” are defined as a retail store that is either:

  • Over 15,000 square feet in size and sells primarily household foodstuffs for off-site use, or
  • Over 85,000 square feet and with 10 percent of their sales floor area dedicated to the sale of non-taxable merchandise, including fresh foods and prepared foods.

The proposed ordinance requires these covered stores to always have at least one staffed, traditional checkout lane available whenever self-checkout is in use and limits self-checkout purchases to 15 items or fewer.

The proposed ordinance also prohibits the use of self-checkout for items requiring ID (like alcohol or tobacco) or items with special theft-deterrent tags.

Additionally, stores would be required to assign at least one employee to supervise every two self-checkout stations, and these employees cannot have other duties that would distract them from monitoring the area.

The proposed ordinance allows employees and customers to take legal action if the rules are violated, with escalating penalties for non-compliance, and protects employees from retaliation for reporting violations.

Covered employers will need to be mindful of the ordinance to ensure appropriate staffing.

The ordinance will have a second vote at the next regular City Council meeting, scheduled for August 12th. If approved during the second vote by the City Council, the ordinance will take effect on the 31st day after it is approved by the mayor.

At the first reading of the ordinance, the City Council requested that the City staff report back approximately 90 days after implementation of the ordinance to determine any challenges or changes that may be needed.

If you have questions about the Long Beach ordinance or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

A recent California Court of Appeal decision provides clarity for employers with commissioned outside sales employees. In Hirdman v. Charter Communications, the court confirmed that employers may calculate paid sick leave for outside salespersons using their base hourly pay, excluding commissions, as long as that’s how they calculate other forms of paid leave.

Bradley Hirdman, a former outside salesperson for Charter Communications, sued the company under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), claiming he was not paid correctly for sick leave. He argued that commissioned outside salespeople like him should be considered “nonexempt employees” when it comes to calculating sick leave, which would require factoring in commissions into the pay rate.

Charter disagreed, stating that Hirdman was an “exempt employee” under the Labor Code’s outside salesperson exemption, and that it properly used his base hourly rate (excluding commissions) to calculate his sick pay, just as it did for vacation or other paid time off.

The trial court sided with Charter, and the Court of Appeal has now affirmed that decision.

The court found the law’s language to be clear: “Exempt employees” includes all those exempt from overtime rules, including outside salespeople.

The court rejected the argument that the term “exempt” should be limited to executive, administrative, or professional employees. It also declined to rely on a non-binding opinion letter from the Labor Commissioner’s office that supported Hirdman’s view, noting that the letter did not reflect a long-standing or formal agency interpretation.

The Court of Appeal held that employers should use the paid sick leave calculation method described in Labor Code section 246(l)(3), pertaining to exempt employees.  That method simply requires employers to calculate sick pay the same way they calculate other types of paid leave.  The court’s decision simplifies the payroll process for certain commissioned employees and helps ensure consistency.

If you have questions about the outside sales exemption, paid sick leave payments, or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.