News Archive - Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce

Don't Forget the March 30 Emergency Contact Deadline

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 18:31:57 GMT

Most employers already collect emergency contact information during onboarding. It is one of those routine HR forms that gets completed on day one and then quietly sits in a personnel file.

Until now.

A new California requirement means that emergency contact forms are no longer just administrative paperwork. They are now part of your legal compliance obligations.

By March 30, 2026, you must give current employees the opportunity to designate an emergency contact and indicate whether that person should be notified if you have actual knowledge that the employee has been arrested or detained during work hours. Going forward, you must provide the same opportunity to employees at the time of hire.

If you have not updated your forms yet, now is a good time to take a look.

What the Law Requires

The rule itself is fairly straightforward. You must give employees the opportunity to:

designate an emergency contact
update that contact information during employment
indicate whether that contact should be notified if you have actual knowledge the employee has been arrested or detained during work hours

The law does not require employees to provide an emergency contact. It only requires that you give them the opportunity to do so.

That distinction matters when it comes to documenting compliance.

Why?

California lawmakers adopted this rule in response to concerns about employees who are detained at work during immigration enforcement actions.

When that happens, employees can disappear from the workplace suddenly, leaving family members unaware of what happened or where the employee has been taken. The law is intended to give employees the ability to identify someone who should be notified in that situation.

For employers, the takeaway is simple: the emergency contact form you have always used now carries additional legal significance.

Now What?

Fortunately, this is an easy compliance fix. Before the March 30 deadline, take a few practical steps.

First, review your existing emergency contact form. Many employers already have one, but it likely does not include a place for employees to indicate whether they want that contact notified if they are arrested or detained during work hours.

Second, update the form to include that option.

Third, distribute the updated form to current employees before the March 30 deadline.

Finally, make sure the updated form becomes part of your standard onboarding process for new hires.

If you use an HRIS or digital onboarding system, this is usually a quick adjustment.

Why Small Compliance Details Matter

In our experience, the compliance problems that cause the most frustration are rarely the complicated ones. They are the small procedural requirements that are easy to overlook.

A missed form. An outdated onboarding document. A process that was never updated after a change in the law.

None of these issues seem significant on their own, but they can create unnecessary exposure if regulators, or plaintiffs’ attorneys, start reviewing your workplace practices.

The Bottom Line

If you have not already updated your emergency contact process, now is the time.

Before March 30, 2026, make sure you give employees the opportunity to designate an emergency contact and indicate whether that person should be notified if you have actual knowledge the employee has been arrested or detained during work hours.

Navigating the Growing Landscape of State AI Employment Bills and Laws

Mon, 09 Mar 2026 18:26:46 GMT

What Employers Need To Know

Key Takeaways

Two bills recently introduced in California’s State Senate, SB 947 and SB 951, if enacted, would significantly affect compliance obligations for employers.
SB 947, which is broadly drafted to include both traditional employees and independent contractors, aims to limit—if not fully prohibit—the use of AI systems in employment decisions.
SB 951 seeks to amend California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (Cal-WARN) to account for employees whose employment was ended due to the use of AI or other automated technology.

California continues to expand regulations over AI in employment decision-making—a hot-button topic across states that employers should monitor closely.

California ramped up its regulation of employers' use of AI with hiring rules that took effect on October 1, 2025. The Civil Rights Council of the California Civil Rights Department finalized amendments under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) addressing automated decision systems (ADS) in the workplace. The regulations define ADS as computational tools that make or assist employment decisions, including AI- or algorithm-based resume screeners, targeted ads, assessments, and interview analytics. The regulations prohibit employers from using ADS or selection criteria that discriminate against applicants or employees based on protected characteristics under FEHA.

Both SB 947 and SB 951 would expand AI restrictions further.

SB 947

Introduced by Senator Jerry McNerney, SB 947 is a revised version of SB 7, the “No Robo Bosses” Act, which was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2025. [1] Overall, the bill seeks to prohibit or severely restrict the unfettered use of AI systems in employment decisions. In addition, the bill is drafted in the broadest terms to include not only traditional employees but also independent contractors. Under this bill, the state would prohibit employers from (1) using ADS to violate any federal, state, or local labor, employment, or civil rights laws; (2) inferring an employee’s protected status under FEHA; (3) conducting predictive behavior analysis; and (4) taking adverse action against employees for exercising their legal rights.

Further, the bill would prohibit using individualized worker data as inputs in compensation decisions “unless the employer can clearly demonstrate that any differences in compensation for substantially similar or comparable work assignments are based upon cost differentials in performing the tasks involved, or that the data was directly related to the tasks that the worker was hired to perform.”

SB 947 would prohibit employers from relying solely on ADS for disciplinary or termination decisions. Rather, such decisions would require a human reviewer to conduct an investigation to determine whether the decision was correct. While ADS may assist in the decision, the decision must be supported by corroborating information, such as managerial evaluations, work reviews, and witness interviews. If an employer determines that the corroborating information does not support the determination, the bill would prohibit the employer from using the ADS output. One feature of the bill appears unrelated to ADS: The bill broadly prohibits the use of customer ratings as the only or “primary” input in an employment-related decision.

The law includes broad notice requirements where ADS assists in making disciplinary, termination, or “deactivation” decisions. If ADS assists in such decisions, the employer must notify the worker that ADS was used, confirm that a human reviewed the decision, identify the contact information for the human who reviewed the decision, and state that retaliation for challenging the decision is prohibited.

The bill’s enforcement provision includes not only labor commissioner charges but also a private right of action for aggrieved workers who can seek damages caused by adverse action, including injunctive relief, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees. Employers would also be subject to a civil penalty of $500.

SB 951

Introduced by Senator Eloise Gomez Reyes, SB 951 would amend California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (Cal-WARN) for displacement or termination decisions that are driven by the use of AI or other automated technology. Key provisions include:

Longer notice period . Employers would be required to provide at least 90 days' advance written notice prior to a mass layoff, compared to the current 60-day requirement under Cal-WARN.
New notice requirements. The notice must include information related to AI or automation, including the specific job functions that will be automated, the AI system or automating technology that led to the displacement (including the entities that developed, sold, or leased the technology), and the justification and purpose for using the AI tool.
Reporting obligations. Employers would need to provide notice to affected workers, the Employment Development Department, and local officials.
Lower workforce threshold. Notice would be required prior to a layoff affecting 25 or more workers, or 25% of the workforce (whichever is less), compared to the current Cal-WARN threshold of 50 or more employees laid off within a 30-day period. Notably, the threshold applies to traditional employees and independent contractors. However, seasonal workers would not be included in the worker count.
Affected worker bidding priority. Employers with more than 100 employees would be required to provide each affected employee with the right of first bid on other job positions with the employer.

Other State Developments

In addition to states where obligations are in place, Colorado, Illinois, and Texas have laws that are set to take effect this year.

Colorado

Colorado's AI Act (SB 24-205) takes effect on June 30, 2026. The law requires employers to use reasonable care to protect consumers from "algorithmic discrimination," defined as unlawful differential treatment or impact based on protected characteristics under Colorado or federal law. A narrow exemption applies to employers with fewer than 50 employees who do not use their own data to train their AI systems.

Illinois

Illinois HB 3773, effective January 1, 2026, prohibits the use of AI in ways that intentionally or unintentionally discriminate against employees based on protected characteristics. Draft rules from the Illinois Department of Human Rights would require employers to notify employees and applicants whenever AI is used to influence employment decisions, with disclosures covering the AI product, its purpose, the data it collects, and a point of contact. The draft rules also impose a four-year recordkeeping requirement.

Texas

The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (HB 149), effective January 1, 2026, prohibits the use of AI systems that intentionally discriminate against members of a protected class under state or federal law. Under Texas law, however, disparate impact alone is not sufficient to demonstrate an intent to discriminate.

Employer Action Items

As laws regulating the use of AI in employment decisions continue to proliferate, employers should take proactive steps to ensure compliance. Practical next steps include the following.

Analyze Current AI Systems

Identify all AI tools and automated decision systems currently used in employment-related processes, including recruitment, hiring, performance management, and termination decisions. Employers should also test AI systems for potential algorithmic discrimination and document mitigation efforts, which may also support defenses under laws like Colorado's AI Act. It is also worthwhile to audit any AI systems used to inform compensation decisions to ensure pay differentials can be justified by legitimate, job-related factors.

Train HR and Management

Educate human resources personnel, hiring managers, and supervisors on AI compliance requirements and the importance of human oversight in employment decisions.

Assess Jurisdictional Exposure and Monitor Legislative Developments

Determine which state AI laws apply based on where employees and applicants are located, and map compliance obligations accordingly. Employers should also continue tracking proposed AI legislation at the state and federal levels, as this area of law is rapidly evolving.

The regulatory landscape governing AI in employment is expanding rapidly, with several jurisdictions implementing distinct requirements that create a complex compliance environment for multistate employers. As these laws take effect and new legislation continues to emerge, employers that invest in robust AI systems with transparent human oversight will be best positioned to mitigate legal risk while continuing to leverage AI tools in their workforce operations.

Endnote

[1] Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the measure on the grounds that it imposed overbroad notification requirements and restrictions on how employers may use ADS tools.

UCAN: Broad Coalition Submits Signatures to Qualify the Local Taxpayer Protection Act for November Ballot

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 22:32:34 GMT

Business and taxpayer advocates turn in more than 1.3 million signatures, say measure reaffirms voters’ will and protects Californians from higher local taxes amid cost-of-living crisis

Sacramento, CA — A broad coalition of business and taxpayer advocates today announced the submission of signatures to qualify the Local Taxpayer Protection Act for the November 2026 statewide ballot. The measure is designed to reaffirm voter protections against higher local taxes and ensure greater transparency and accountability before new taxes are imposed.

The coalition — including the California Business Roundtable, California Business Properties Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and California Taxpayers Association — emphasized that the measure is about protecting working families and employers at a time when Californians are already struggling with some of the highest housing, energy, and everyday living costs in the nation.

“This is about reaffirming and restoring the will of the voters when they overwhelmingly passed Prop. 218,” said Rob Lapsley, President of the California Business Roundtable . “Californians have repeatedly voted for transparency and accountability when it comes to taxes. At a time when families and small businesses are squeezed by the highest cost of living in the country, the last thing we need are new and higher local taxes without clear voter approval. The Local Taxpayer Protection Act restores guardrails and ensures taxpayers have the final say.”

Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association , said the submission of signatures reflects strong grassroots support across the state. “Taxpayers deserve certainty and fairness. The Local Taxpayer Protection Act protects the integrity of voter-approved tax safeguards and prevents end-runs around longstanding constitutional protections. This is about defending taxpayers and making sure local governments live within their means.”

Robert Gutierrez, President of the California Taxpayers Association , emphasized the importance of fiscal discipline. “California’s cost-of-living crisis is real. Before asking taxpayers for more, government at every level must prioritize accountability and responsible budgeting. This measure reinforces voter intent and ensures that new local taxes meet clear, consistent standards.”

The growing coalition includes campaign co-chairs the California Business Roundtable , Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association , California Business Properties Association , and the California Taxpayers Association (CalTax) .

Coalition leaders said the signature submission marks the beginning — not the end — of their efforts.

“We are organized, united, and ready to take this directly to voters in November,” Lapsley added. “Californians want affordability, transparency, and respect for their vote. We look forward to a robust campaign that makes the case for protecting taxpayers and keeping the cost of living in check.”

If certified, the Local Taxpayer Protection Act will appear on the November 2026 ballot.

Employers: Ensure You Are in Compliance with California's New AI Anti-Discrimination Rules

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 22:28:18 GMT

Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

California has made it clear that artificial intelligence (AI) utilization must conform to long-standing anti-discrimination laws under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Accordingly, the California Civil Rights Council recently updated existing anti-discrimination laws in California’s FEHA to specifically address the use of technology in making employment decisions and to protect against employment discrimination arising from AI, algorithms, and other automated decision systems (ADS).

Compliance Implications for Employers Adopting AI Agent Technologies

As California employers newly incorporate AI agents into their employment procedures, it is vital that they comply with the new anti-discrimination provisions adopted by the Civil Rights Council. Below, we consider the specific provisions.

Effective October 1, 2025, California employers must comply with new FEHA regulations that hold them accountable for discrimination resulting from the use of AI and ADS in the employment process. This applies to employers and companies with five or more employees.

These new rules apply to ADS, including computer use with AI, machine learning, and algorithms that employers use to make or assist in employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion, and compensation.

Some common examples include:

Resume screening software used for specific terms or patterns;
Targeted job advertisements or recruiting materials directed at specific groups;
Video interview analysis and skill assessments;
Facial expressions, voice analysis, and word choice used during online interviews; and
Predictive analytics for promotions or performance evaluations.

Why AI Regulations are Needed

ADS, which may rely on algorithms or artificial intelligence, are increasingly used in employment settings to facilitate a wide range of decisions related to job applicants and employees, including recruitment, hiring, and promotion. While these tools can bring efficiency and benefits, they can also exacerbate biases and lead to discrimination against specific groups.

Thus, California’s new AI rules under the Fair Employment Housing Act prohibit employers from using AI and ADS that result in disparities in the hiring process or direct discrimination against applicants based on protected characteristics, such as race, age, religion, gender, disability, and national origin.

Process for Issuing the Regulations

Under California law, the California Civil Rights Department is responsible for enforcing many of the state’s robust civil rights laws, including in the areas of employment, housing, businesses and public accommodations, and state-funded programs and activities.

As part of those efforts, the Civil Rights Council develops and issues regulations to implement state civil rights laws, including for new and emerging technologies. With respect to the issue of ADS, the Civil Rights Council’s final regulations are the result of public hearings and input from experts, as well as federal reports and guidance. These regulations went into effect on October 1, 2025.

The New AI Antidiscrimination Laws in California’s FEHA Aim to

Protect against bias for the protected characteristics such as race, age, religion, gender, disability, and national origin;
Ensure employers maintain employment records;
This liability can extend to third-party vendors or staffing agencies
Ensure that the ADS assessments do not constitute unlawful medical injury

Key Provisions of California’s New AI Antidiscrimination Laws Under FEHA

1. Protection Against Bias

The use of ADS may violate California law if it harms applicants and/or employees based on protected characteristics, such as race, age, religion, gender, disability, or national origin.

Anti-Bias Testing as an Affirmative Defense

The Regulations provide that, to defend against a discrimination claim based on the use of ADS, employers can show that they conducted anti-bias testing to avoid unlawful discrimination prior to and after adopting ADS. § 11009(f). The regulations identify six relevant aspects of such testing, including the quality, efficacy, recency, and scope of such testing, as well as the results of the testing or other due diligence.

The courts will gauge how recently companies audited ADS used in conjunction with employment decisions, how thorough the employer’s testing was, what the results of audits showed, and whether the employer made corrections in line with the audits’ findings. In practice, this makes regular testing and documentation essential to defending discrimination claims that implicate AI tools.

The new regulations provide that bias audits and similar proactive measures can be used as evidence in discrimination cases when ADS are used in connection with employment decisions, such as hiring, termination, or promotion.

2. Maintenance of Employment Records

The regulations were amended to require employers and covered entities to preserve ADS-related records, personnel records, and employment records for at least four years.

This includes retaining the data used to run ADS tools, the outputs generated (including scores or rankings), the criteria applied to job or promotion candidates, and the results of any testing or evaluations. If a complaint is filed by an applicant or employee, an employer must retain these records for even longer.

3. Vendor Responsibility and Liability

The regulations explicitly state that liability can extend to third-party vendors or staffing agencies used by the employer. Thus, if the employer’s staffing partner or AI software provider uses an ADS tool on the employer’s behalf and it has a discriminatory impact, the employer may still be held responsible.

The regulations also extend liability for ADS discrimination to an employer’s agent, which is defined as anyone acting on behalf of an employer, directly or indirectly, to exercise a function traditionally exercised by the employer or any other FEHA-regulated activity.

4. Medical Inquiry Restrictions

The regulations state that AI tools that analyze applicants for physical or mental traits may constitute unlawful medical inquiries.

ADS AI-driven assessments, such as questions, games, puzzles, or other challenges that elicit information or are used to obtain information about a medical disability, may constitute an unlawful medical inquiry under FEHA. Additionally, ADS assessments that may measure an applicant or employee’s skills, dexterity, reaction time, and other abilities or characteristics are also discriminatory if used for the employment hiring, termination, or promotion process.

Key Takeaways and Compliance Reminders for Employers

Employers should take the following steps to ensure they are in compliance with the new FEHA requirements:

Implement and document bias testing and be prepared to show how they addressed any issues found during testing.
Update their anti-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies to address the use of ADS systems.
Perform anti-bias testing , establish a plan outlining the frequency and nature of such testing, and document the testing process, criteria, results, and steps taken to address such results.
Update their data retention policy to ensure ADS-related data is preserved for at least four years. Employers should also review and update their data retention policies to comply with these new rules and ensure records are retained for at least 4 years.
Review their vendor contracts and add obligations related to testing, transparency, termination, data protection, and compliance. The regulations explicitly state that liability can extend to third-party vendors or staffing agencies used by the employer. Thus, employers should review their vendor agreements and contracts, require transparency regarding any testing, and allocate responsibility for compliance and liability in contracts through appropriate warranties and indemnification clauses.
Ensure that the ADS programs and the AI-driven assessments used to elicit information on a disability do not constitute an unlawful medical inquiry or a violation under FEHA.

Next Steps For Employers

California’s recently updated AI rules under the Fair Employment Housing Act came into effect on October 1, 2025, and are a relatively new regulation given the rapidly changing pace of technology in the workplace.

Going forward, California employers using AI tools in employment decision-making and hiring processes should be prepared to be held accountable for audits over bias, recordkeeping of documents, and oversight of vendors and staffing agencies.

Therefore, it is beneficial for employers to be aware of these new AI and ADS rules, to make necessary accommodations and changes to their employment regulatory policies, and to avoid the risk of AI compliance issues and litigation. The AI and ADS civil rights regulations in the workplace will likely expand across state lines.

INTRODUCING THE CALIFORNIA RETAIL LAW CENTER

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 18:53:26 GMT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

California Retailers Association Launches California Retail Law Center to Address Retail’s Top Legal and Regulatory Challenges

Sacramento, CA — The California Retailers Association (CRA) announced the official launch of the California Retail Law Center , a new legal and policy initiative designed to support retail legal teams navigating California’s complex and fast-evolving legal and regulatory environment.

The California Retail Law Center will be chaired by Danielle Hohos, Deputy General Counsel for Williams-Sonoma, Inc. and former Chair of the California Retailers Association Board of Directors. The Center brings together in-house retail counsel and trusted legal partners to collaborate on the most pressing litigation, regulatory, and compliance issues facing retailers doing business in California.

“California sets the pace for the nation when it comes to regulation, litigation, and public policy,” said Hohos. “ The California Retail Law Center creates a dedicated forum for retail legal leaders to share best practices, track emerging legal trends, and engage directly in shaping policies that impact our industry.”

Housed within the California Retailers Association , the California Retail Law Center is designed to provide retail legal professionals with California-specific resources, insights, and opportunities to engage on issues including employment and labor law, privacy and artificial intelligence, consumer class actions, environmental sustainability, workplace safety, Proposition 65, ADA compliance, and other emerging issues impacting the retail industry. Through the Center, members will have access to CLE-eligible webinars, litigation and regulatory updates, benchmarking surveys, and regular opportunities to collaborate with policymakers and regulators.

In addition to serving as a professional resource, the California Retail Law Center will play a key role in supporting CRA’s advocacy before the Governor, the State Legislature, and California regulatory agencies by providing legal insight, strategic guidance, and industry expertise. Members may also participate in amicus briefs, regulatory comment letters, and policy strategy discussions focused on reducing over-litigation and promoting balanced, workable regulations.

“The California Retail Law Center reflects our commitment to proactive, solution-oriented advocacy on behalf of retailers operating in one of the most complex legal environments in the country,” said Rachel Michelin, President and CEO of the California Retailers Association . “By convening retail legal leaders and leveraging their expertise, CRA is strengthening our ability to educate policymakers, influence regulatory outcomes, and help retailers manage risk while continuing to serve California consumers and communities.”

Membership in the California Retail Law Center is open to legal professionals from CRA retail member companies, with additional participation opportunities available for law firms that work closely with the retail industry. Programming will include monthly legal briefings, an annual California Legal. Policy and Regulatory Strategic Summit, quarterly newsletters, and both virtual and in-person engagement with California legal and regulatory leaders.

For more information about the California Retail Law Center or membership opportunities contact cra@calretailers.com.

Fisher Phillips - An Employer's 5-Step Guide to AI Interviewing and Hiring Tools

Wed, 11 Feb 2026 00:06:31 GMT

AI-enabled interviewing tools have emerged as a common solution for the administrative burdens associated with hiring. These tools improve efficiency, streamline operations, allow you to consider more candidates without expanding your hiring team, keep evaluations consistent across applicants, and make high-volume hiring easier. But their adoption also raises important legal considerations, including potential bias, compliance risks, and data privacy and cybersecurity obligations – all while we face a growing regulatory and litigation landscape targeting the use of these tools. This Insight reviews the most common tools being deployed by employers and their associated risks, and provides a five-step suggested plan for minimizing liability.

AI Interviews Tools and Systems

Rather than solely focusing on tools that assist with logistics or document review (like simple schedulers or resume screeners), the newest generation of AI hiring tools can analyze and organize interview responses in ways that can directly shape hiring decisions.

Transcription and summarization tools. These tools convert spoken interview responses into written text using speech recognition technology, making interviews easier to review, search, and compare across candidates. Many platforms also generate summaries, highlights, or structured interview notes to support recruiter review.
Interview analysis and evaluation tools. These systems analyze recorded interview responses to assess factors such as speech patterns, tone, pacing, word choice, facial expressions, and other nonverbal cues. Some tools incorporate emotion or sentiment analysis or natural language understanding to evaluate both how candidates communicate and the substance of their responses, and may produce scores, rankings, or qualitative insights to support early-stage screening.
Adaptive or dynamic interview systems. These tools adjust interview questions in real time or across interview stages based on a candidate’s prior responses. The goal is to probe specific competencies, behaviors, or skills more deeply by tailoring follow-up questions rather than relying on a fixed interview script.
Behavioral, personality, and multimodal assessment tools. Certain AI interview platforms attempt to infer behavioral tendencies or personality traits by combining data from audio, video, and text responses. These multimodal systems may draw on behavioral frameworks to assess characteristics such as communication style, adaptability, or collaboration, and may tailor evaluations to competencies associated with a specific role.
Skills and assessment platforms. These tools use simulations, technical challenges, situational judgment tests, or role-specific exercises to evaluate how candidates perform job-related tasks, often producing standardized results that allow for comparison across applicants.
Video interview platforms. These platforms support live or asynchronous video interviews and often serve as the foundation for other AI-driven features. In addition to hosting interviews, they may integrate automated screening, adaptive questioning, communication analysis, and structured candidate summaries to support early interview stages and recruiter review.

Legal, Ethical, and Organizational Risks Associated with AI Interview Tools

As with other AI systems, AI interviewers are shaped by the data used to design and develop them, which can give rise to legal, ethical, and organizational risks similar to those associated with other AI tools. These issues are further heightened by the collection and analysis of sensitive data, such as biometric identifiers, behavioral patterns, and other personal signals generated during AI interviews.

Race and Disability Bias. Candidates with disabilities may claim to be disadvantaged when their communication or behavior differs from the patterns these systems are trained to recognize as indicators of qualification. For example, a pending discrimination complaint filed by the ACLU with the Colorado Civil Rights Division and the EEOC highlights these concerns, alleging that an employer’s use of AI interview tools adversely affected a deaf, Indigenous employee. The complaint asserted that automated speech recognition features misinterpreted or inaccurately evaluated her communication style, particularly in ways that may disadvantage non-white or accented speakers.
State Data Privacy. AI interviewers can collect and process a significant amount of sensitive data, including video and audio recordings, behavioral signals, and, in some cases, biometric identifiers derived from facial or voice analysis . While the state data privacy law landscape continues to expand, we’ll face increased instances of plaintiffs and regulators alleging that the use of AI hiring tools run afoul of state law. As a result, organizations must individually determine how interview data is handled across its life cycle, including how it is used, whether it is retained or repurposed beyond the initial hiring decision, and the extent to which it may be shared with or reused by technology vendors to improve or train AI systems.
Organizational Security and Deepfakes. Another potential pitfall is the challenge AI interview tools face when encountering deepfakes , which involve the use of synthetic or manipulated video, audio, or real-time AI-generated content to alter or replace a person’s appearance, voice, or responses. In these situations, AI systems may analyze fabricated signals rather than authentic candidate behavior, particularly in asynchronous interviews where live verification is limited.
Vendor Liability. Organizations may face legal and compliance exposure based on the design and operation of third-party AI interview tools, even when the underlying technology is developed and managed by a vendor. In a 2023 enforcement action, EEOC v. iTutorGroup Inc ., the EEOC challenged an employer’s use of automated recruiting software that screened out applicants based on age, resulting in a settlement and remedial obligations under federal anti-discrimination laws. Although that particular enforcement action did not involve AI interviewers, it highlights a similar. Employers remain responsible for how AI interviewer tools and systems function and the outcomes they produce, even when the technology is designed and operated by a third party.
Reputational and Trust Risks Associated with Applicant AI Use. The use of AI interview tools is not only limited to employers; organizations are now confronted with how to address applicants’ use of AI during the interview process . Applicant-facing AI tools, such as interview coaching, response assistance, or real-time prompting technologies, are often seen as “cheating,” leading some organizations to outright ban their use on the applicant side. Restricting applicant AI use while employers rely on AI interviewers to evaluate candidates has, in some cases, led to negative perceptions of employers and raised questions about fairness. This is particularly important for employers to keep in mind, as interviews are traditionally viewed as a two-way assessment, where not only employers assess potential candidates, but candidates also assess their potential employers.

5 Steps You Can Take to Mitigate Risks

If your organization uses or is considering AI interview tools, the following five steps can help proactively manage risk.

1. Develop Comprehensive AI Policies. While many organizations rely on a single, high-level AI policy, a more effective governance framework typically includes multiple, complementary policies tailored to different aspects of AI use. At a minimum, you should establish a comprehensive program to address three areas: organizational AI governance, ethical use of AI, and tool-specific acceptable use policies. If you are not sure where to begin, our AI Governance 101 Guide provides a helpful starting point and can be found here .

2. Ensure Ongoing Vendor Oversight. You should treat AI interview vendors as an extension of the hiring process rather than as standalone technology providers. Managing risk requires clear contractual guardrails, transparency into how tools function, and ongoing monitoring to ensure compliance and fairness. For guidance on key considerations to consider during your vendor selection process, review our AI Vendor Resource here .

3. Adopt Measures to Identity and Prevent Deepfakes . Adopting identity verification measures for candidates, particularly in asynchronous interviews, and establishing review protocols to flag irregular or suspicious interview behavior can help mitigate the use of deepfakes. For video interviews in particular, you should implement tools that support human review and train employees to recognize indicators of manipulated or synthetic content. For guidance about practical steps to take, review our Hiring with Confidence in the AI Era Insight here.

4. Audit AI Interview Tools and Systems. You should regularly audit AI interview tools to assess whether they rely on signals such as speech patterns, accents, tone, facial expressions, or eye contact, and limit or disable features that may disadvantage candidates with disabilities, neurodivergent traits, or culturally distinct communication styles. You should also ensure that alternative interview formats are available to help prevent qualified candidates from being screened out based on how AI systems interpret communication rather than job-related qualifications. FP has partnered with analytics firm BLDS and AI fairness software provider SolasAI to deliver an integrated suite of bias audit services – learn more here .

5. Establish Clear and Balanced Policies on Applicant AI Use . Your approach to applicant use of AI during interviews can present reputational risk if perceived as inconsistent, overly restrictive, or misaligned with the employer’s own use of AI tools. Prohibiting applicant AI use while deploying AI interviewers may be viewed as a double standard, potentially affecting employer brand, candidate trust, and overall recruitment outcomes. Accordingly, you should address applicant use of AI during interviews through transparent, balanced policies rather than blanket prohibitions. This includes clearly communicating what types of AI use are acceptable, such as accessibility tools or interview preparation support, and what uses are not permitted, such as real-time response generation intended to misrepresent a candidate’s abilities.

Credit: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/an-employers-5-step-guide-to-ai-interviewing-and-hiring-tools.html

Jackson Lewis -- What California Employers Should Know About SB 294 and Immigration

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 18:56:34 GMT

Posted in Compliance and Enforcement , Fees and Penalties , Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) , Legislation

California’s “Workplace Know Your Rights Act,” SB 294, introduces significant new requirements for California employers beginning Feb. 1, 2026, with important implications for immigration‑related enforcement and employee rights.

The law is intended to ensure that all employees, including immigrant workers, are informed of their protections during workplace interactions with immigration authorities and law enforcement.

Key components of SB 294 include the following:

1. Mandatory Written Notice of Immigration‑Related Rights

On or before Feb. 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, employers must provide a stand‑alone written notice to all current employees as well as to new hires at the time of hire. The notice must include information on the following immigration-related rights:

Rights during immigration‑agency inspections, including notice requirements.
Protection from unfair immigration‑related practices, such as documenting abuse or retaliation based on immigration status.
Constitutional rights during law‑enforcement encounters, including protections from unreasonable searches, self‑incrimination, and due process violations.

Non-immigration rights that are also required to be given notice include (1) the right to workers’ compensation benefits, including disability pay and medical care for work-related injuries or illness, as well as contact information for the Division of Workers’ Compensation; and (2) the right to organize a union or engage in concerted activity in the workplace.

This notice must be delivered using the method normally used for workplace communications, such as email, text message, or personal delivery, as long as the employee can reasonably receive it within one business day.

The state labor commissioner has released official templates of the notice in Spanish and English , with additional languages to be made available in the future. The written notice must be provided in the language the employer uses to communicate employment-related information and that the employee understands if the template notice is available in that language, otherwise, English is fine.

2. Emergency Contact Requirement for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Arrests or Detentions

By March 30, 2026, employers must offer employees the opportunity to designate an emergency contact to be notified if the employee is:

Arrested or detained at the workplace, or
Arrested or detained offsite during work hours, when the employer has actual knowledge.

This requirement applies to onsite and remote employees working in California and applies only if the employer has actual knowledge of the employee’s arrest or detention.

3. Recordkeeping Expectations

Employers must maintain proof of notice, including dates and methods, for at least three years.

4. Penalties for Non‑Compliance

Violations carry meaningful fines for employers:

Up to $500 per employee for failing to provide the written notice
Up to $10,000 per employee for failing to notify the designated emergency contact after an arrest or detention

5. Immediate Next Steps for Employers

Ensure dissemination of the template notice by Feb. 1, 2026.
Incorporate the template notice into onboarding and annual communications.
Implement workflows to collect and update emergency‑contact authorizations.
Train HR and managers on how to handle ICE activity and protect employee rights.
Prepare to track and retain distribution records.

Why Do So Many California Workers Feel Economically Insecure?

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 21:12:27 GMT

by Mary Severance - Public Policy Institute of California

California is an economic powerhouse, but many working Californians feel financially insecure—they struggle to pay bills, save for the future, and balance the demands of work and daily life. Why does economic security seem out of reach for so many workers, and what could be done to improve their well-being? At a virtual event last week, PPIC researchers discussed a new report that focuses on these questions.

Sean Cremin, a report coauthor, outlined the report’s key findings. “We draw on big-picture data on California’s workforce,” he said. But the report also draws from 12 focus groups convened across the state. “Our focus groups included workers who, like three-quarters of California’s labor force, are lower and middle earners—making below about $100,000 per year.”

“We were aiming to hear from people experiencing economic insecurity,” said coauthor Tess Thorman. But Thorman was struck by the similarity of the challenges facing middle-wage and low-wage workers: “To hear the same story from both income groups was a bit of a surprise.”

Workers in the focus groups were especially concerned about housing and food prices, particularly since the onset of the pandemic. As Cremin noted, “Workers making lower wages have a more difficult time adjusting to higher costs for essentials, as these make up a larger share of their spending relative to higher-wage workers.”

Indeed, higher costs force many workers to make tradeoffs. Some have to choose between working a full-time job to earn more and working part time so that they can care for children or other family members. Many have considered moving to lower-cost areas but did not want to move away from local support networks. And others described choosing between working more hours or maintaining income eligibility for safety net benefits—in particular, Medi-Cal coverage for prescription costs.

While recent inflation has heightened worker challenges, longer-term shifts in the labor market have played a major role. “Since 2000, the number of high-wage jobs in the labor market has grown by 60%, and the number of low-wage jobs has grown by 20% . . . but there has been essentially no growth in middle-wage jobs,” Cremin said.

These long-term trends, combined with recent labor market volatility and economic uncertainty, make it more challenging for lower-wage workers to improve their earnings and well-being.

Coauthor Sarah Bohn was not optimistic about the near-term economic outlook. “Inflation is tempering but remains higher than the Federal Reserve’s target of 2%—and there are questions about trade policy,” she said. “On the wage front,” she added, “when the number of job openings is not as high as it was a few years ago, it’s not an environment where employers really need to compete by increasing wages.”

Many focus group participants felt that state policymakers seeking to improve economic well-being need to better understand the experiences of lower-wage workers. As one focus group participant put it, “Until you know how hard it is to live on, like, $2,000 a month, when rent is $1,200–$1,800 and you have kids or dependents, then you can’t really conceptualize what people need.”

Credit: Why Do So Many California Workers Feel Economically Insecure? - Public Policy Institute of California

CDF Labor Law

Fri, 02 Jan 2026 22:45:42 GMT

A Year-End Compliance Checklist for California Employers

As 2025 comes to a close, many California employers are juggling holiday schedules, performance reviews, and planning for 2026. Just as importantly, now is the time to evaluate whether your workplace practices are keeping up with California’s fast-changing labor and employment laws. A structured year-end compliance review can help you identify and resolve issues before they become costly demands, audits, or litigation. The following checklist highlights key areas California employers should review now as we enter the new year.

Required Policy and Handbook Updates

Your employee handbook is a critical compliance tool. There are several new laws effective in the coming year(s) that will require policy updates, and below are a few:

Paid Sick Leave (LC 230.2): Policies must be updated to include an employee’s right to use paid sick leave and take protected unpaid leave if they or a family member are a victim of certain crimes and need to attend related judicial proceedings. This includes proceedings such as a delinquency hearing, post-arrest release decision, plea, sentencing, or any proceeding where the victim's rights are at issue. The definition of a "victim" for this purpose is broad, covering individuals who suffer harm from various felonies.
Court/Jury Duty (LC 230): The requirement for employees to provide "reasonable notice" prior to taking time off for jury duty has been removed. However, if an employee uses paid sick leave or other protected leave for this purpose, the standard notice requirements for that leave still apply.
Paid Family Leave (Effective July 1, 2028): While not immediate, employers should begin planning for a significant expansion of the Paid Family Leave (PFL) program. Commencing July 1, 2028, employees will be able to take PFL to care for a "designated person," defined as an individual related by blood or whose association is the equivalent of a family relationship.

Required Postings and Employee Notices

California has introduced new notice obligations for employers. As a result of the Workplace Know Your Rights Act (SB 294), employers will be required to provide a stand-alone written notice to all current employees, and to new hires, outlining specific workers’ rights. These rights pertain to workers’ compensation, immigration agency inspections, and law enforcement actions at the workplace. The Labor Commissioner is tasked with developing a template notice, which is expected to be available on or before January 1, 2026.

Recordkeeping and Retention Reminders

Proper record maintenance is a cornerstone of compliance. A new California law, Senate Bill (SB) 513, expands the scope of Labor Code Section 1198.5, by expanding the scope of records that must be retained. Employers must now include specific training records within the personnel files they are required to maintain. These records should detail the employee’s name, the training provider, the duration and date of the training, the core competencies covered, and any resulting certification or qualification.

Reviewing How you Pay Your Workers

Wage and hour compliance remains a high-risk area for California employers. Annual year-end reviews are essential.

Minimum Wage Increase: On January 1, 2026, California’s statewide minimum wage is set to increase to $16.90 per hour. This change also raises the minimum annual salary for exempt employees to $70,304 (or $5,858.67 per month). A number of California cities have implemented their own minimum wage requirements that are higher than the State’s minimum wage requirements. Please check your local jurisdiction’s minimum wage laws.
Regular Rate of Pay: Ensure you are correctly calculating the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, paid sick leave, and any required meal and rest period premiums, including all required forms of compensation (including but not limited to shift differentials and non-discretionary bonuses, as examples).
Worker Classification: Review your workforce to confirm that all workers are correctly classified, i.e. employees vs. independent contractors, and exempt from overtime vs. non-exempt from overtime laws. Misclassification continues to be a source of significant liability.
Stay or Pay / Clawback Clauses: On January 1, 2026, California's AB 692 takes effect, which bans most provisions that make employees repay benefits if they leave. While there are narrow exceptions for things like tuition assistance or sign-on bonuses, these will require separate, compliant agreements with specific legal conditions to be enforceable. Employers in California must promptly review and amend employment agreements, offer letters, and bonus structures to remove any such prohibited clauses.
Pay Equity : California's pay equity laws require employers to pay equally for "substantially similar work" regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity. Employers cannot pay less based on sex, race, or ethnicity for work requiring similar skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. Conduct internal pay equity reviews to prepare for compliance obligations.

Required Employee Trainings

Employers must schedule and meet all California mandated training deadlines. The following are requirements for most all employers:

Sexual Harassment & Abusive Conduct Prevention Training: Employers with five or more employees must provide this training every two years.
Workplace Violence Prevention Training (SB 553): In conjunction with having a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan, employers must also provide this training annually and whenever changes are made to their Plan.
Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) Training: California’s IIPP requires all employers to have a written and implemented IIPP plan to ensure safe workplaces. Employers must also provide training on their IIPP plan which might include information on how to communicate hazards, conduct hazard assessments, investigate incidents, correct issues, and ensure employee compliance. Training should be provided to new hires and as needed to maintain a safe workplace.

Steps California Employers Should Take

A year-end compliance checklist is only valuable if it leads to action. Employers should take concrete steps to prepare for 2026.

Update your employee handbook and policies to reflect all legal changes required for your industry.
Ensure you have scheduled training for your employees as required, and are maintaining proper records of that training in accordance with new 2026 requirements.
Update Human Resource onboarding and offboarding systems to include all required notices for 2026.
Review and, if necessary, amend employment agreements to remove prohibited "stay-or-pay" clauses, which are banned by AB 692 as of January 1, 2026.
Conduct internal pay equity (and pay data reporting) reviews to prepare for compliance obligations.

Worklaw Network

Fri, 02 Jan 2026 22:44:46 GMT

California Employment Law Update: What Employers Should Expect in 2026

As to be expected, California continues to lead the nation with robust employment protections and expanded employer obligations. A slate of new laws taking effect in 2026 will impact wages, pay transparency, notices, leave rights, enforcement penalties, and more. Employers should begin planning now to reduce compliance risk, avoid penalties, and maintain effective HR operations.

Here’s what employers should know as 2026 approaches.

Minimum Wage and Salary Threshold Adjustments

Effective January 1, 2026, California’s statewide minimum wage increases to $16.90 per hour for all employees, regardless of employer size. The minimum salary threshold for many exempt employees also rises specific amount dependent on industry. Reach out to a McMahon Berger Attorney for more information to determine your industry’s amount.

Action Steps:

• Update payroll systems to reflect new minimum wage and salary thresholds.

• Confirm exempt classifications align with updated compensation standards.

Expanded Pay Transparency and Pay Equity Requirements

California continues to strengthen pay transparency and equal pay enforcement in 2026. SB 642 expands employers’ obligations under the state’s equal pay and transparency laws by requiring that job postings include a good-faith estimate of the wage range the employer reasonably expects to pay at hire. SB 642 also broadens equal pay protections to include non-binary workers and extends the statute of limitations for pay discrimination claims.

Action Steps:

• Include clear, realistic pay ranges in all external job postings.

• Conduct internal reviews of pay practices to address potential disparities.

New “Know Your Rights” Employee Notices

Starting February 1, 2026, SB 294 requires employers to provide a stand-alone written notice to all employees at hire and annually thereafter summarizing specific workplace rights. These rights include wage protections, immigration-related workplace rights, labor organizing protections, and other employment entitlements.

Action Steps:

• Adopt and distribute the required worker rights notice at hire and annually.

• Maintain records of distribution and acknowledgment of receipt.

Increased Penalties for Unpaid Wage Judgments

New law clarifies that employers who fail to satisfy wage judgments within 180 days may face enhanced enforcement actions, including penalties up to three times the judgment amount plus attorneys’ fees. Unpaid awards may also be publicly posted by the Labor Commissioner.

Action Steps:

• Establish protocols to track wage awards and satisfy judgments promptly.

• Coordinate with outside counsel early in wage claim disputes.

Expanded Leave and Worker Protections

Several new laws taking effect in 2026 further expand employee leave rights and workplace protections, increasing compliance obligations for employers. Paid sick and safe leave protections have been broadened to cover additional qualifying uses and strengthen anti-retaliation provisions, making it riskier for employers to discipline or terminate employees for leave-related absences. Certain recall and reinstatement rights enacted during the COVID-19 era have also been extended or clarified for specific industries, requiring employers to offer reemployment opportunities to laid-off workers before hiring new employees. In addition, California has imposed new limits on so-called “stay-or-pay” arrangements, restricting an employer’s ability to require employees to repay training costs, onboarding expenses, or other employment-related debts upon separation, with only narrow exceptions.

Action Steps:

• Review and update leave and attendance policies to ensure they reflect expanded protected leave rights and anti-retaliation standards.

• Train managers and supervisors on handling leave requests and protected absences.

• Audit existing training reimbursement, repayment, and employment-related debt agreements before attempting enforcement.

Emergency Contact and Arrest/Detention Notifications

As part of SB 294, employers must give employees the opportunity to designate an emergency contact and must notify that contact if the employer has actual knowledge the employee has been arrested or detained at the worksite. These provisions take effect in early 2026 and carry potential penalties for non-compliance.

Action Steps:

• Modify personnel files to collect emergency contact information.

• Train HR personnel on notification requirements.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Employment Decisions

California lawmakers and regulators continue to scrutinize the use of artificial intelligence and automated decision-making tools in the workplace. While many AI-specific requirements initially focus on developers and large companies, employers that use AI-driven tools for recruiting, screening, hiring, promotion, or performance evaluation should proceed with caution in 2026. Employers remain legally responsible for employment decisions made with the assistance of AI, particularly where such tools may result in biased or discriminatory outcomes. As regulatory guidance evolves, employers should ensure human oversight of automated processes, evaluate vendors carefully, and regularly review hiring and employment practices for compliance with anti-discrimination laws.

Practical Tips for Employers in 2026

To prepare for these and other 2026 developments, employers should consider the following:

• Audit compensation policies to ensure compliance with minimum wage and pay transparency rules.

• Update onboarding and annual training materials to include new notice requirements.

• Coordinate early with outside counsel before undertaking layoffs, wage disputes, or classification changes.

• Review contracts and policies that could be impacted by new protections such as pay equity and repayment agreements.

• Early planning and thoughtful implementation of these requirements can help employers reduce litigation risk, improve HR compliance, and adapt to California’s evolving employment landscape.

Conclusion

The 2026 California employment law changes continue a clear trend toward increased regulation, heightened enforcement, and expanded employee protections. Employers that take a reactive approach risk significant exposure in the form of penalties, wage claims, and costly litigation. By reviewing compensation practices, updating policies and notices, training management teams, and consulting counsel early, employers can position themselves to comply with evolving requirements while minimizing disruption to their operations. Proactive planning in 2025 will be critical to navigating California’s increasingly complex employment landscape in 2026 and beyond.

CDF Labor Law -- A Year-End Compliance Checklist for California Employers

Fri, 26 Dec 2025 21:59:24 GMT

The following checklist highlights key areas California employers should review now as we enter the new year.

Required Policy and Handbook Updates

Your employee handbook is a critical compliance tool. There are several new laws effective in the coming year(s) that will require policy updates, and below are a few:

Paid Sick Leave (LC 230.2): Policies must be updated to include an employee’s right to use paid sick leave and take protected unpaid leave if they or a family member are a victim of certain crimes and need to attend related judicial proceedings. This includes proceedings such as a delinquency hearing, post-arrest release decision, plea, sentencing, or any proceeding where the victim's rights are at issue. The definition of a "victim" for this purpose is broad, covering individuals who suffer harm from various felonies.
Court/Jury Duty (LC 230): The requirement for employees to provide "reasonable notice" prior to taking time off for jury duty has been removed. However, if an employee uses paid sick leave or other protected leave for this purpose, the standard notice requirements for that leave still apply.
Paid Family Leave (Effective July 1, 2028): While not immediate, employers should begin planning for a significant expansion of the Paid Family Leave (PFL) program. Commencing July 1, 2028, employees will be able to take PFL to care for a "designated person," defined as an individual related by blood or whose association is the equivalent of a family relationship.

Required Postings and Employee Notices

Recordkeeping and Retention Reminders

Reviewing How you Pay Your Workers

Wage and hour compliance remains a high-risk area for California employers. Annual year-end reviews are essential.

Minimum Wage Increase: On January 1, 2026, California’s statewide minimum wage is set to increase to $16.90 per hour. This change also raises the minimum annual salary for exempt employees to $70,304 (or $5,858.67 per month). A number of California cities have implemented their own minimum wage requirements that are higher than the State’s minimum wage requirements. Please check your local jurisdiction’s minimum wage laws.
Regular Rate of Pay: Ensure you are correctly calculating the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, paid sick leave, and any required meal and rest period premiums, including all required forms of compensation (including but not limited to shift differentials and non-discretionary bonuses, as examples).
Worker Classification: Review your workforce to confirm that all workers are correctly classified, i.e. employees vs. independent contractors, and exempt from overtime vs. non-exempt from overtime laws. Misclassification continues to be a source of significant liability.
Stay or Pay / Clawback Clauses: On January 1, 2026, California's AB 692 takes effect, which bans most provisions that make employees repay benefits if they leave. While there are narrow exceptions for things like tuition assistance or sign-on bonuses, these will require separate, compliant agreements with specific legal conditions to be enforceable. Employers in California must promptly review and amend employment agreements, offer letters, and bonus structures to remove any such prohibited clauses.
Pay Equity : California's pay equity laws require employers to pay equally for "substantially similar work" regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity. Employers cannot pay less based on sex, race, or ethnicity for work requiring similar skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. Conduct internal pay equity reviews to prepare for compliance obligations.

Required Employee Trainings

Employers must schedule and meet all California mandated training deadlines. The following are requirements for most all employers:

Sexual Harassment & Abusive Conduct Prevention Training: Employers with five or more employees must provide this training every two years.
Workplace Violence Prevention Training (SB 553): In conjunction with having a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan, employers must also provide this training annually and whenever changes are made to their Plan.
Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) Training: California’s IIPP requires all employers to have a written and implemented IIPP plan to ensure safe workplaces. Employers must also provide training on their IIPP plan which might include information on how to communicate hazards, conduct hazard assessments, investigate incidents, correct issues, and ensure employee compliance. Training should be provided to new hires and as needed to maintain a safe workplace.

Steps California Employers Should Take

A year-end compliance checklist is only valuable if it leads to action. Employers should take concrete steps to prepare for 2026.

Update your employee handbook and policies to reflect all legal changes required for your industry.
Ensure you have scheduled training for your employees as required, and are maintaining proper records of that training in accordance with new 2026 requirements.
Update Human Resource onboarding and offboarding systems to include all required notices for 2026.
Review and, if necessary, amend employment agreements to remove prohibited "stay-or-pay" clauses, which are banned by AB 692 as of January 1, 2026.
Conduct internal pay equity (and pay data reporting) reviews to prepare for compliance obligations.

UCAN: NFIB Announces Top Six Legislative Priorities in 2026

Fri, 26 Dec 2025 21:57:32 GMT

Containing costs, preventing further lawsuit abuse, paying off state’s UI debt make the list

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Dec. 17, 2025— The state’s leading small business association today announced its top lobbying priorities for 2026, just ahead of the California State Legislature’s return to business on January 5.

“We will certainly be lobbying for or against many more bills, but these six are our top priorities,” said John Kabateck, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in California. “We’ve already received some spoken bipartisan support for our number-one priority; we’ll see if that translates into real votes.”

1. Paying off the state’s $21 billion unemployment insurance debt to the federal government
California has the nationally embarrassing distinction of being the only state remaining that has not paid Uncle Sam back for the money it borrowed to keep its unemployment insurance (UI) trust fund solvent during the pandemic. Business owners are the only ones who pay UI taxes, and the interest clock is spinning. Complementary to this lobbying goal is fighting any attempt to extend UI benefits to those already with jobs, such as striking workers.

2. Reforming the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) along the lines of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) reforms to cut down on frivolous, closure-threatening lawsuits
Like PAGA before it, the ADA has become a lucrative vehicle for fast-buck lawyers to use for shakedown lawsuits, mainly by opposing efforts to allow for a right-to-cure period for violations. NFIB will work with Sens. Roger Niello, Angelique Ashby, and Anna Caballero on their efforts to make Senate Bill 84 a vehicle for reform. Complementary to this will be NFIB’s fight against any legislation creating new rights to sue for the flimsiest of reasons, such as this year’s Senate Bill 222.

3. Fully funding Proposition 36 reforms to the state’s retail theft laws
The overwhelming support Proposition 36 received last election sent an unmistakable message to legislators that they were moving too slowly in addressing the retail theft pandemic gripping California. Now, they and Governor Newsom are moving too slowly in fully funding the voter-approved corrective. In an election year, NFIB will use The Power of the Small Business Voice, to lobby for giving the people what they voted for.

4. Protecting Proposition 13
Since its passage in 1978, the ruling political class in California has tried to eliminate or strip away the property tax protections in the law, either legislatively or by ballot initiative. Seventy-three percent of NFIB-member, small-business owners own the building or property where their businesses are located. NFIB will continue to oppose legislative efforts to chip away at Proposition 13 protections and support ballot initiatives that preserve and enhance it.

5. Stopping any further minimum wage increases
We will remind lawmakers that voter rejection of Proposition 32 just last year should put paid to any legislative attempts to now step in an increase the state’s minimum-wage rate. Californians are starting to recognize that allowing cities and counties to set a higher minimum-wage rate than the state’s has created a mess and that the minimum wage has always been, and will always be, an entry level wage for teenagers and young adults. Abundant research shows it does not lift anyone out of poverty or sustains a family just on it. Increasing the minimum wage has only one effect and that is to eliminate opportunities for people to get their first job on the way up the economic ladder of their life.

 6. Preventing any more leave-time proposals from passing
California already offers 17 types of employee leave time, according to the Shouse California Law Group. Add to this, Senate Bill 590, signed into law this year, which expands eligibility for benefits under paid family leave to those with the “equivalent” of a family relationship. Assembly Bill 1136, which passed the Legislature but was vetoed by the governor, would have allowed for leave time for a multitude of reasons other than for health and recuperation. The leave mill never stops or slows in the Legislature. Finding workers to fill in for an employee out on leave is a costly challenge for small business owners in particular, especially in an era when they are having immense difficulty finding employees to fill their normal job openings. The state should not compound the problem by adding more leave time.

5 Essential Record Retention Reminders

Wed, 26 Mar 2025 02:21:00 GMT

Black Friday Tips for Small Business

Fri, 22 Nov 2024 01:37:00 GMT

Provided by U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Article by Kaytlyn Smith , Contributor

Black Friday, the consumer holiday synonymous with unbeatable deals, has seen remarkable growth in popularity, with consumers spending an estimated $10.8 billion in 2024. This annual shopping event not only delights shoppers, but it also presents businesses with an opportunity to attract new customers and significantly increase their revenue.

Here are 15 strategies your business can implement to prepare for Black Friday.

News Archive - Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce

Don't Forget the March 30 Emergency Contact Deadline

Most employers already collect emergency contact information during onboarding. It is one of those routine HR forms that gets completed on day one and then quietly sits in a personnel file.

﻿

Until now.

Navigating the Growing Landscape of State AI Employment Bills and Laws

What Employers Need To Know

UCAN: Broad Coalition Submits Signatures to Qualify the Local Taxpayer Protection Act for November Ballot

Business and taxpayer advocates turn in more than 1.3 million signatures, say measure reaffirms voters’ will and protects Californians from higher local taxes amid cost-of-living crisis

Employers: Ensure You Are in Compliance with California's New AI Anti-Discrimination Rules

Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

Compliance Implications for Employers Adopting AI Agent Technologies

Some common examples include:

Why AI Regulations are Needed

Process for Issuing the Regulations

Key Provisions of California’s New AI Antidiscrimination Laws Under FEHA

1. Protection Against Bias

Key Takeaways and Compliance Reminders for Employers

Next Steps For Employers

INTRODUCING THE CALIFORNIA RETAIL LAW CENTER

Fisher Phillips - An Employer's 5-Step Guide to AI Interviewing and Hiring Tools

AI Interviews Tools and Systems

Legal, Ethical, and Organizational Risks Associated with AI Interview Tools

5 Steps You Can Take to Mitigate Risks

Jackson Lewis -- What California Employers Should Know About SB 294 and Immigration

Posted in Compliance and Enforcement , Fees and Penalties , Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) , Legislation

Why Do So Many California Workers Feel Economically Insecure?

by Mary Severance - Public Policy Institute of California

CDF Labor Law

A Year-End Compliance Checklist for California Employers

Worklaw Network

California Employment Law Update: What Employers Should Expect in 2026

CDF Labor Law -- A Year-End Compliance Checklist for California Employers

UCAN: NFIB Announces Top Six Legislative Priorities in 2026

Containing costs, preventing further lawsuit abuse, paying off state’s UI debt make the list

5 Essential Record Retention Reminders

Black Friday Tips for Small Business