As the government shutdown continues, the White House budget director and MAGA bulldog Russel Vought has made it clear that he despises federal workers. Last October he was caught on video saying, “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go…
The war on federal workers, and workers in general, by the Trump Administration rages on nine months after the president first took office. The latest assault is against federal workers amid the government shutdown, as the administration sent pink slip notifications to over 4,000 workers. And as has become custom, a federal judge has stepped…
California’s 2025 legislative session has officially wrapped, and Governor Gavin Newsom has made his final decisions on hundreds of bills sent to his desk before the October 13 deadline. For California employers, this year’s legislative package delivers another wave of significant workplace changes—spanning wage equity, paid family leave, worker classification, and expanded employee rights across multiple industries.
Below, we’ve summarized the final outcomes of the major employment law bills Governor Newsom acted on this session, along with brief descriptions of what each bill does.
My firm will be hosting a California employment law Masterclass on October 30, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., where we’ll break down what these new laws mean for employers in 2026—and highlight other key compliance updates to prepare for the year ahead.
Register here: Zaller Law Group Masterclass – California Employer Legislative Update: What’s at Stake in 2026
| Bill | Summary | Sign or Veto? |
| SB 642 | Wage Equity: Would clarify the term “pay scale” to mean “the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position up to hire.” It would also set the statute of limitations for Labor Code 1197.5 claims to three years and allow workers to recover wages for up to six years in pay equity claims, while extending the statute of limitations. | Signed |
| SB 261 | Labor Commissioner Penalties and Collections: Would require that the Labor Commissioner post on its website any unsatisfied awards against employers and would establish a civil penalty for employers that fail to pay a court judgment awarded for nonpayment of work performed. | Signed |
| SB 7 | No Robo Bosses Act: Would require employers using an “automated decision system” (ADS) in employment decisions to notify workers before and after use, would ban sole reliance on ADS for adverse actions, and would mandate human review in such cases. Would apply broadly and become enforceable in 2026, with civil penalties for violations. | Vetoed |
| SB 590 | Paid Family Leave – Designated Person: Would allow that, starting July 1, 2028, employees to take Paid Family Leave to care for a “designated person,” defined as someone related by blood or with a family-like relationship. | Signed |
| AB 692 | Employment Restraint of Trade Contracts: Would ban many “stay-or-pay” contracts with workers, including training repayment agreements. | Signed |
| AB 250 | Extended Statute of Limitations for Sexual Assault / Harassment Claims: Would allow certain sexual assault claims previously time-barred to be filed from Jan 1, 2026 to Dec 31, 2027 if a “cover-up” by an employer is alleged. | Signed |
| SB 809 | Independent Contractors and Employee Vehicle Business Expense: Would clarify that owning a vehicle does not make a worker an independent contractor and would reiterate that employers must reimburse employees for using personal vehicles for work, and create a limited amnesty program for misclassified construction trucking employers. | Signed |
| AB 858 | Rehiring and Retention of Displaced Workers: Would extend COVID-era right-to-rehire protections for hospitality workers to Jan 1, 2027, with DLSE enforcement extended beyond 2026 for prior violations. | Signed |
| SB 703 | Ports: Truck Driver Independent Contractors: Would require trucking companies at the Ports of LA and Long Beach to certify compliance with tax and classification laws for employees and would mandate a reporting when 50% or more employees are replaced by independent contractors, with steep penalties for noncompliance or misrepresentation. | Vetoed |
| SB 464 | Employer Pay Data Reporting: Would increase the number of job categories (from 10 to 23) required in employer pay data reports starting in 2027, would mandate separate storage of demographic data with penalties for non-filing, and would create a civil penalty for employers who fail to submit reports to the California Civil Rights Department. | Signed |
| AB 1136 | Immigration and Work Authorization: Would require 5 days unpaid leave and reinstatement rights for employees involved in immigration proceedings or detention and would ban adverse actions based solely on immigration status or having been subject to immigration proceedings. | Vetoed |
| SB 294 | The Workplace Know Your Rights Act: Would require a new annual written notice (starting February 1, 2026) informing workers of their rights, including around immigration and law enforcement, and would require that an employer notify an employee’s emergency contact if arrested or detained while at work. | Signed |
| AB 1326 | Right to Wear A Mask: Would grant individuals the right to wear a medical-grade mask in public or at work for health-related reasons, with exceptions for safety, security, or emergency protocols. | Vetoed |
| SB 513 | Personnel Records: Would expand the definition of personnel records to include training details (e.g. certifications, skills, provider, and duration) and would require employers to track and retain them. | Signed |
| SB 355 | Judgment Debtor Employers: Would require, within 60 days of a final judgment being entered against an employer requiring payment to an employee or to the state, the judgment debtor employer to provide documentation to the Labor Commissioner that the judgment is fully satisfied, a certain bond has been posted, or the judgment debtor entered into an agreement for the judgment to be paid in installments and is in compliance with that agreement, with civil penalties for non-compliance. | Vetoed |
| SB 764 | Chain Restaurants: Children’s Meals: Would require that chain restaurants (20+ locations under the same name) meet certain nutritional standards (calories, sodium, fruit/veg portions, etc.), and mark healthier options plainly. | Vetoed |
| SB 68 | Food Allergens Disclosures: Would require restaurants to have written labeling under or next to each item on the menu that contains any of the top 9 allergens. | Signed |
| SB 648 | Tip Theft: Would authorize the Labor Commissioner to investigate and issue a citation or file a civil action for gratuities taken or withheld in violation of the Labor Code. | Signed on July 30, 2025. |
With these new laws taking effect over the coming months, California employers should begin reviewing their policies, training programs, and compliance systems now to stay ahead of the curve. Many of the changes—particularly those involving pay transparency, leave rights, and pay data reporting obligations—will require proactive planning and documentation. Our team at Zaller Law Group is here to help employers understand how these developments impact the workplace and to guide businesses through the steps needed to ensure compliance in 2026 and beyond.
The post New 2026 Employment Law Requirements in California: Key Bills Signed, Vetoed, and What’s Next appeared first on California Employment Law Report.
California has taken a groundbreaking step in regulating artificial intelligence in the workplace. As of October 1, 2025, the state’s Civil Rights Council has implemented comprehensive regulations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) that fundamentally change how employers can use automated decision systems in hiring.
If your company uses AI tools, algorithms, or any automated software in recruitment, you need to understand these rules—because ignorance is no longer a defense.
Here’s what every California employer needs to know: Using AI or automated tools does not protect you from discrimination liability. Period.
The Civil Rights Council has made it crystal clear that decisions made through automated systems are treated as the employer’s own actions. Whether a human or an algorithm screens resumes, ranks candidates, or flags applicants for rejection, your company bears full responsibility for any discriminatory outcomes.
This isn’t about whether AI is good or bad—it’s about accountability. Software used in hiring must now be treated like any other component of your hiring process: subject to bias scrutiny, oversight, and thorough documentation.
Before we dive into compliance requirements, let’s clarify what falls under these regulations. Automated decision systems include any AI, algorithmic, or rule-based tool used in recruitment, such as:
If it uses code, rules, or algorithms to help make hiring decisions, it’s likely covered.
The first step toward compliance is knowing exactly what you’re using. This isn’t optional—it’s foundational.
Start by creating a comprehensive inventory of every automated tool that touches your recruitment process. Don’t overlook anything. That “simple” resume parser? It counts. The personality assessment test? Absolutely. The targeted LinkedIn job ads? Those too.
For each tool, you need to document:
This is where employer-vendor relationships get tested. You need to ask tough questions:
That last question is critical. In a disparate impact lawsuit, someone will need to prove the tool doesn’t discriminate. Make sure you know whether your vendor contract addresses this, or if you’re on your own.
If a vendor can’t or won’t answer these questions, that’s a massive red flag. You may need to reconsider the partnership entirely.
Not all automated tools carry equal risk. California employers should classify their ADS tools into risk categories:
High Risk: Tools that REJECT candidates
Medium Risk: Tools that RANK candidates
Lower Risk: Tools that SUGGEST or SURFACE information
Your highest-risk tools should receive the most scrutiny, documentation, and human oversight.
The consequences of non-compliance can be severe. FEHA allows for:
More importantly, if you can’t document your ADS tools, demonstrate bias testing, or show appropriate oversight, you’ll be in an extremely weak position defending against discrimination claims.
If you’re using AI or automated tools in hiring, here’s what you should do immediately:
California’s regulations represent a significant shift in how we think about AI in hiring. Rather than seeing automation as a way to reduce bias or streamline processes without accountability, the law now recognizes that these tools are extensions of the employer’s decision-making authority—and liability.
Other states are watching California’s approach closely. What happens here often becomes a template for national standards. Employers who get ahead of these requirements now will be better positioned as similar regulations emerge elsewhere.
The use of AI in hiring isn’t going away, nor should it necessarily. Technology can help identify talent, reduce manual workload, and even mitigate certain types of bias when designed and monitored properly.
But these new regulations send a clear message: Employers cannot outsource accountability to algorithms. The decision to use automated tools must come with a commitment to transparency, testing, documentation, and human oversight.
If you’re using AI in hiring, treat it like what it legally is—your own decision-making process. Because under California law, that’s exactly what it is.
Need help navigating these regulations? Consider consulting with employment counsel who understands both FEHA requirements and automated decision systems. The investment in compliance now can save substantial legal exposure down the road.
This blog post provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Employers should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances.
As of October 1, 2025, California’s Civil Rights Council regulations under FEHA hold employers liable for discrimination arising from the use of automated decision systems (ADS) in hiring. The use of AI or other automated tools does not shield employers from liability; decisions made through such systems are treated as the employer’s own actions. Employers must now treat software used in the hiring process like any other component of their hiring process: subject to bias scrutiny, oversight, and documentation. We broke down what these regulations mean for California employers in an earlier post — you can read it here.
Here are five key issues employers using AI or other software for the recruiting and hiring process need to understand:
1. Inventory & classify all ADS tools in your hiring stack
What to do now:
Why this matters:
Under the new rules, “ADS” is broadly defined — it includes any computational process that “makes or facilitates human decision making regarding an employment benefit.” Even tools that may seem benign (e.g. targeted job ads) can be covered by the new regulations. An employer that lacks a clear inventory of its automated systems cannot credibly demonstrate oversight or accountability in an audit.
2. Conduct (or plan) bias testing + human review overlay
What to do now:
Why this matters:
Employers will not get a carve-out by saying AI made the decision. If an algorithm produces adverse impact and you do not have bias testing or human intervention documented, courts or regulators may view you as negligent. The regulations do not require mandatory testing, but lack of testing is a gap in your defense.
3. Retain audit-ready records for at least four years
What to do now:
Why this matters:
Without comprehensive, tamper-evident documentation, your risk increases significantly.
4: Revisit vendor contracts & liability allocation
What to do now:
Why this matters:
Employer will not be able to use a defense that “the AI vendor mishandled it.” The law contemplates third-party accountability.
5: Train and communicate internally
What to do now:
Why this matters:
Compliance depends on execution. If your people don’t understand what to watch for or override, the best policies on paper may fail in practice.
The post Friday’s Five: California’s New Hiring-AI Rules Are Live — Checks to Run Before Your Next Hire appeared first on California Employment Law Report.
Chicago union leaders met with Pope Leo XIV, who is from the Windy City, as the Trump Administration targets immigrants there in crackdown. The Chicago Sun Times reports: “Pope Leo XIV urged labor union leaders from Chicago on Thursday to advocate for immigrants and welcome minorities into their ranks, weighing in as the Trump administration…
October is here and that means it’s time for some scary fun! If you’re shopping for candy to give out to all the frightening trick-or-treaters, use make sure to use our exclusive list to choose union-made! Each purchase supports good jobs. Vote with your wallet this Halloween! 100 Grand (IBT 200) Abba-Zabba (BCTGM) Almond Roca…
As California’s 2025 legislative session comes to a close, employers are watching Sacramento with anticipation. Governor Gavin Newsom faces an October 13, 2025 deadline to either sign into law or veto dozens of bills passed by the Legislature. Many of these bills would impose new compliance obligations on California employers, expand employee rights, and create fresh enforcement tools for state regulators.
The measures touch nearly every corner of the workplace—from wage equity and paid family leave, to AI in hiring, to industry-specific protections for hospitality, trucking, and chain restaurants. In short, the Governor’s decisions will shape how employers operate in 2026 and beyond.
The Top Five Bills We Are Watching Most Closely
1. SB 642 – Wage Equity: Would clarify the term “pay scale” to mean “the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position up to hire.” It would also set the statute of limitations for Labor Code 1197.5 claims to three years and allow workers to recover wages for up to six years in pay equity claims, while extending the statute of limitations.
2. SB 590 – Paid Family Leave – Designated Person: Would allow that, starting July 1, 2028, employees to take Paid Family Leave to care for a “designated person,” defined as someone related by blood or with a family-like relationship.
3. SB 7 – No Robo Bosses Act: Would require employers using an “automated decision system” (ADS) in employment decisions to notify workers before and after use, would ban sole reliance on ADS for adverse actions, and would mandate human review in such cases. Would apply broadly and become enforceable in 2026, with civil penalties for violations.
4. AB 250 – Extended Statute of Limitations for Sexual Assault / Harassment Claims: Would allow certain sexual assault claims previously time-barred to be filed from Jan 1, 2026 to Dec 31, 2027 if a “cover-up” by an employer is alleged.
5. AB 692 – Employment Restraint of Trade Contracts: Would ban many “stay-or-pay” contracts with workers, including training repayment agreements.
Full Watch List: Other Employment (and some food-industry related) Bills Awaiting Governor Newsom’s Decision:
SB 261 – Labor Commissioner Penalties and Collections: Would require that the Labor Commissioner post on its website any unsatisfied awards against employers and would establish a civil penalty for employers that fail to pay a court judgment awarded for nonpayment of work performed.
SB 809 – Independent Contractors and Employee Vehicle Business Expense: Would clarify that owning a vehicle does not make a worker an independent contractor and would reiterate that employers must reimburse employees for using personal vehicles for work, and create a limited amnesty program for misclassified construction trucking employers.
AB 858 – Rehiring and Retention of Displaced Workers: Would extend COVID-era right-to-rehire protections for hospitality workers to Jan 1, 2027, with DLSE enforcement extended beyond 2026 for prior violations.
SB 703 – Ports: Truck Driver Independent Contractors: Would require trucking companies at the Ports of LA and Long Beach to certify compliance with tax and classification laws for employees and would mandate a reporting when 50% or more employees are replaced by independent contractors, with steep penalties for noncompliance or misrepresentation.
SB 464 – Employer Pay Data Reporting: Would increase the number of job categories (from 10 to 23) required in employer pay data reports starting in 2027, would mandate separate storage of demographic data with penalties for non-filing, and would create a civil penalty for employers who fail to submit reports to the California Civil Rights Department.
AB 1136 – Immigration and Work Authorization: Would require 5 days unpaid leave and reinstatement rights for employees involved in immigration proceedings or detention and would ban adverse actions based solely on immigration status or having been subject to immigration proceedings.
SB 294 – The Workplace Know Your Rights Act: Would require a new annual written notice (starting February 1, 2026) informing workers of their rights, including around immigration and law enforcement, and would require that an employer notify an employee’s emergency contact if arrested or detained while at work.
AB 1326 – Right to Wear A Mask: Would grant individuals the right to wear a medical-grade mask in public or at work for health-related reasons, with exceptions for safety, security, or emergency protocols.
SB 513 – Personnel Records: Would expand the definition of personnel records to include training details (e.g. certifications, skills, provider, and duration) and would require employers to track and retain them.
SB 355 – Judgment Debtor Employers: Would require, within 60 days of a final judgment being entered against an employer requiring payment to an employee or to the state, the judgment debtor employer to provide documentation to the Labor Commissioner that the judgment is fully satisfied, a certain bond has been posted, or the judgment debtor entered into an agreement for the judgment to be paid in installments and is in compliance with that agreement, with civil penalties for non-compliance.
SB 764 – Chain Restaurants: Children’s Meals: Would require that chain restaurants (20+ locations under the same name) meet certain nutritional standards (calories, sodium, fruit/veg portions, etc.), and mark healthier options plainly.
SB 68 – Food Allergens Disclosures: Would require restaurants to have written labeling under or next to each item on the menu that contains any of the top 9 allergens.
Already signed by the Governor: SB 648 – Tip Theft: Authorizes the Labor Commissioner to investigate and issue a citation or file a civil action for gratuities taken or withheld in violation of the Labor Code. This bill was signed by the Governor on July 30, 2025.
Our 4th Annual “Sign or Veto” Contest
To make this season of legislative suspense a little more fun, we invite you to participate in the 4th Annual Zaller Law Group “Sign or Veto” Contest. Here’s your chance to test your knowledge of California politics and workplace trends:
Prizes:
How to Play:
Winners will be announced after the Governor’s October 13 deadline!
Save the Date: Webinar on the New Laws – October 30, 2025
When: Thursday, October 30, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. PT
What: Zaller Law Group attorneys will review which new Governor Newsom signed into law, and other key employment law updates for California employers in 2026.
Register here: Click to Register for the Webinar
The post Sign or Veto? Key California Workplace Bills Employers Must Watch in 2025 appeared first on California Employment Law Report.
California’s Captive Audience Ban, aka SB 399 (Labor Code § 1137) is in a temporary holding pattern. A California district court judge issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from enforcing the statute for now.
What SB 399 would have done: it prohibited taking adverse action against employees who decline to attend employer communications or meetings on “political” or “religious” matters, expressly including union topics. The business coalition challenging the law argues it’s preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and violates the First Amendment. The court’s order signals those arguments are likely to succeed, at least preliminarily.
If you haven’t added SB 399 handbook language for 2025, you can hold off while the injunction stands. It’s worth noting that current standing federal guidance still treats mandatory union-related “captive-audience” meetings as unlawful. In November 2024, the NLRB held that compelling attendance at employer union presentations violates Section 8(a)(1) prospectively. However, the NLRB currently lacks a quorum and cannot issue new decisions or precedent but can regionally enforce violations.
What to do now:
• Keep any union-related meetings voluntary, not mandatory, with reasonable advance notice and no attendance tracking or consequences.
• Train supervisors on lawful do’s and don’ts (no threats, surveillance, or promises; stick to factual, non-coercive messaging).
• Monitor the state litigation for appeals or modifications to the injunction. Monitor any movement at the NLRB level.
Stay tuned for developments in this area.
Hello, labor rights followers! Scanning the latest from the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) reveals no new enforcement citations or announcements from the Labor Commissioner’s Office today.
The construction industry, with its complex subcontracting and entity structures, is vulnerable to schemes that use multiple companies to dodge wage laws. This tactic can obscure responsibility and deprive workers of fair pay. For today’s deep dive, we highlight a recent action against Los Angeles developers, illustrating how enforcement pierces corporate veils to deliver justice.
Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower said: “Employers can’t hide behind corporate shell games to cheat workers out of their hard-earned wages and entitled protections. This case is a clear example of how business entities were used to mislead workers and deny them the basic rights and legal protections they deserve under the law.”
Actions like this align with broader efforts to tackle misclassification and evasion in high-risk sectors.
Back tomorrow for updates. Info from official DIR channels.