California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects employees against discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

The state's Civil Rights Council (CRC) aims to expand those protections to automated decision-making systems (ADS) using artificial intelligence and algorithms in recruitment, hiring and promotion. Inadequately overseen by company management, such streamlined processes can perpetuate biases and lead to discrimination, particularly against individuals with disabilities who need accommodations.

On March 21, 2025, the CRC approved proposed final regulations to:

• Define "agent" to include anyone acting on the employer's behalf to recruit, hire, promote, etc. via ADS;
• Prohibit the use of any ADS that discriminates against FEHA-protected characteristics (e.g., race, gender, disability; and
• Mandate employers retain employment records (e.g., applications, selection criteria, ADS data) for four years.

Take-Aways:

The California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) will review and potentially approve these regulations, likely effective July 1, 2025. Employers should maintain caution and implement human review processes to avoid inadvertent workplace discrimination through AI tools.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• All Aboard - Wages Obligations to New Hires (April 11, 2025)
• Staffing Agency Meltdown; Discrimination Settlement Shuts Down National Firm (April 12, 2024)
• Workplace Artificial Intelligence - EEOC Goes Old School (May 26, 2023)

Cindy Bamforth
May 15, 2025

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has entered a consent decree in an age discrimination lawsuit against movie theatre chain, Allen Theatres, Inc. (Allen). Charges included forced retirement of a 30-year theatre manager because he was 73 years old, stopping health coverage when employees reached 65 years and Medicare eligibility, and paying less to employees over 65.

All of these acts violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), prohibiting discrimination against people 40 and over in hiring, termination, compensation, benefits, and other employment actions.

The consent decree is in effect for two years and requires Allen to:

• Pay $250,000 to the older workers against whom it discriminated;
• Offer health insurance to workers 65 and older; and
• Revise its policies to prohibit age discrimination and require training and investigations of such discrimination.

Mary Jo O'Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, said:. "It violates federal anti-discrimination law . . . to force workers ... to involuntarily retire because of their age. Employers should not impose their ideas about when older employees should quit working, especially for those employees who want to work, are qualified to work, and are doing a good job."

The affected older employees expressed their gratitude to the EEOC for protecting their rights.

Take-Away:

Employers must avoid discriminating against prospective and current employees on any protected basis, including age. Older people (defined as 40 years or older) qualified to work cannot be treated differently from anyone else.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Unsplitting Hairs: Race Discrimination Clarified (November 8, 2024)
• Superstore to Pay $75,000 for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation (August 30, 2024)
• Staffing Agency Meltdown: Discrimination Settlement Shuts Down National Firm (April 12, 2024)

Helena Kobrin
May 9, 2025

For properly-classified "exempt" workers, California employers are not required to comply with certain labor laws, including overtime pay, timekeeping, and provision of meal and rest breaks.

To maintain exempt status, a business must pay the employee's full salary for any workweek in which the employee performs any labor. There are no reductions for:

• Substandard quality or quantity of work;
• Inability to work solely due to the business's operations (e.g., temporary closure for repairs);
• Disciplinary reasons; or
• Working fewer than scheduled hours. For example, if an employee works on Monday and serves on a jury for the rest of the week, they must still receive their full weekly salary.

However, an employer may reduce that weekly salary amount under specific circumstances:

• For absences of one or more full days for personal reasons (e.g., vacation) if not covered by accrued vacation/paid time off benefits, provided that the employee performs no work whatsoever on those days, including checking voicemails, texts or emails;
• For absences of one or more full days due to sickness if the employee has exhausted any available paid sick leave benefits (again, assuming the worker does no work on those days); or
• For working less than a full week during the first and/or last week of employment.

Take-Aways:

Consult with legal counsel to clarify any uncertainties regarding salary reductions.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• California Invests $18 Million to Prosecute Wage Theft (March 8, 2024)
• Overtime Policy - Burning the Midnight Oil (March 9, 2023)
• California's Exemptions from Overtime Pay (January 2012)
• Administrators and Overtime Pay in California (December 2011)
• The California Executive Exemption (November 2009)
• The California Administrative Exemption (November 2009)

Cindy Bamforth
May 2, 2025

In a rare victory for California employers, in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., a California appeals court ruled that employers and employees may enter into written break waivers for unspecified future meal periods under Labor Code 512 and Industrial Wage Commission Orders 4 and 5.

Labor Code 512 requires employers to provide 30-minute unpaid meal breaks for every five hours an employee works, while permitting employees and employers to jointly waive such breaks for work periods not exceeding six hours. It also permits waiver of a second meal period where the hours worked are not more than 12, if the first meal period was not waived.

In Bradsbery, the plaintiffs filed a class action seeking to invalidate written waivers for unspecified future meal periods. The court ruled against the employees. A written prospective meal break waiver is enforceable as long as it is consistent with Labor Code 512 and the Wage Orders, is revocable and not unduly coercive.

Such waivers can be simple, such as the one the Bradsbery court approved:

"I hereby voluntarily waive my right to a meal break when my shift is 6 hours or less. I understand that I am entitled to take an unpaid 30-minute meal break within my first five hours of work; however, I am voluntarily waiving that meal break. I understand that I can revoke this waiver at any time by giving written revocation to my manager."

Employers may not retaliate against workers who refuse to sign such waivers.

Take-Away:

This ruling permits employers to implement - or to continue use of -- such waivers so long as they comply with the requirements stated and employees freely agree to them.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Timekeeping Policy: Fourth Dimension Attention: It's in the Cards (February 24, 2023)
• Employers Lose Food Fight: Break Premiums Ruled Wages, Must Be Reflected on Pay Stubs (June 3, 2022)
• Please: Document Workplace Meal Breaks: Require Employees to Clock Out and Back In on Their Meals (June 4, 2021)

Helena Kobrin
May 2, 2025

All employers must verify identity and work authorization for employees hired within the U.S., including citizens and non-citizens, using "Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification" (the I-9 Form).

The I-9 Form requires the employee to present specified documents and sign section 1 upon hire. The employer must review and verify the documents, record the information on section 2, and retain the fully-completed form for the longer of three years after the date of hire or one year after the date employment is terminated.

Employers must always use a valid, unexpired version of the I-9 Form or, alternatively, E-Verify's web-based employment eligibility verification.

On April 2, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released an updated, slightly modified I-9 Form (the 01/20/25 edition) which expires May 31, 2027.

Key updates include:

• Changing the term "gender" to "sex";
• Changing the term "noncitizen" to "an alien authorized to work"; and
• Adding a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) privacy notice to the instructions.

The USCIS confirmed that although the new I-9 Form is now available for download, employers may continue using prior I-9 Form versions until their respective expiration dates.

Take-Aways:

Promptly implement the 01/20/25 edition and take all I-9 obligations seriously.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Hiring Authorized Workers - I-9 Forms Best Practices (July 5, 2024)
• I-9 Rules Change Again - Remote Verification Possible for E-Verify Users (August 17, 2023)
• No More Room for Zoom - I-9 Rules Are Tightening July 31, 2023 (June 16, 2023)

Cindy Bamforth
April 25, 2025

As too many businesses are being shoved to the brink by mass litigation seeking millions over "minor" Labor Code violations, we continue to preach prevention. Sweat The Details - Friendly Workplace Practices Audits Before PAGA Comes Calling (January 24, 2025).

It is a rare class action employment case that doesn't assert management's sloppy timekeeping practices have caused workers to labor off the clock, outside the recorded time-in or time-out. Five minutes here, ten minutes there would seem no big deal for a single employee, but multiplied by, say, 100 or more on payroll over four or more years, with additional automatic damages, interest and penalties and that business is facing a potential terminating event. Paystub Purgatory - The PAGA Perils of Not Paying Attention (March 14, 2025).

An "old school" employer will commonly counter such a challenge by citing company "rounding" practices, setting the work start or end forward or back to the nearest tenth or even quarter hour. The protocol will still pass muster if "fair and neutral on its face" and used in a way that will not result, over a period of time, "in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked." See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 889 (2012).

Yet, the days of punching paper time cards and relying on the payroll person to consistently round in a fair and neutral manner are likely numbered. In 2021, the California Supreme Court called such practices into question "given that advances in technology have enabled employers to more easily and more precisely capture time worked by employees." Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC 11 Cal.5th 58 (2021).

While we cannot endorse any particular digital system, there is a wealth of resources for management's move to join this trend. See, e.g., The 9 Best Payroll and Timekeeping Software in 2025 (March 10, 2025).

Take-Away:

As an important step to building a company's best protections against crippling legal challenges, best practice is to bring any "traditional" time card system - handwritten or analog - into the 21^st Century mainstream and make sure you include all timekeeping functions that apply to your workforce.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin

See also:

• Workplace Roulette - Reducing the Odds of PAGA Purgatory (December 13, 2024)
• Munched for Lunch - No Break for Paying Employee's Meal Times (September 20, 2024)
• Timekeeping Policy - Fourth Dimension Attention: It's in the Cards (February 24, 2023)

Tim Bowles
April 18, 2025

With its recently published Equal Pay Act statistics for 2023, showing enduring gaps between genders and races, California's Civil Rights Department (CRD) continues its campaign for wage parity. See, Old Trends Die Hard: 2023 Equal Pay Results: Disparities Not Disappearing (April 11, 2025). Employers of 100 or more must report their 2024 numbers by May 14, 2025.

To motivate compliance, the CRD is targeting larger non-reporting companies for substantial penalties, including ● a 2024 $15 million settlement with Snapchat to resolve equal pay, sexual harassment and other claims; ● a 2023 near- $100,000 settlement against Cambrian Homecare over pay data reporting failures; ● another 2023 settlement, for $54 million, against Activision Blizzard over allegations of equal pay and other civil rights violations against women; ● a 2023 $100 million settlement with Riot Games on similar claims; and ● what the agency termed "a set of first-of-a-kind stipulated judgments against Chase Bank and Michaels to ensure the companies' compliance with California's pay data reporting laws."

As CRD Director Kevin Kish put it: "Every year, hard-working Californians lose out on billions of dollars because of the wage gap. Employers can help us fight back. Report your pay data, take a look at employee wages, and take steps to ensure everyone gets equal pay for equal work."

Take-Aways:

With only limited exceptions, California employers of any size must pay equally between the sexes and races. Via the state's online portal, those with 100-plus workers have until May 14, 2025 to submit their equal pay data reports for 2024.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Payroll Data Reporting: May 8, 2024 Deadline for Companies with 100+ on Payroll (March 15, 2024)
• Employer's Mandatory Show & Tell: New State Guidance on Pay Rate Transparency (January 13, 2023)
• For the Record: Sound Management Practices for Personnel Documentation (August 14, 2020)

Helena Kobrin
April 17, 2025

New hires usually spend their first day reviewing policies, signing essential personnel and payroll paperwork, and undergoing initial training.

For efficiency's sake, employers might be tempted to relay those onboarding materials prior to the actual start date. It's best to avoid doing so because an employer must compensate its employees for all hours worked on the employer's behalf, whether on or off company premises.

California wage orders generally define "hours worked" as time during which an employee is subject to the employer's control, including all the time the employee is "suffered or permitted to work," whether required to do so or not.

Take-Aways:

Ensure all employees are compensated for any and all "hours worked." Do not provide new hires (hourly or salaried) with new hire paperwork or other orientation materials, including the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification before the actual start date.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Time to Eat - Meal Break Scheduling Requirements (April 4, 2025)
• Get in the Groove - Workplace Policy Handbook & Forms for 2025 (April 2, 2025)
• Hiring Authorized Workers - I-9 Forms Best Practices (July 5, 2024)

Cindy Bamforth
April 11, 2025

California's Civil Rights Department recently released Equal Pay Act statistics for 2023, mandatory reporting data from employers of 100 or more covering 7.9 million workers.

Comparing workers of individual races and ethnicities, the report showed:

• The lowest pay range of $32,329 annually and under was most likely to include 41% of Black, 41% of Latino, 39% of Native American, 25% of Caucasian workers, and less than 20% of Asian workers.
• Highest earners, $144,560 or more, reflected 59% Caucasian, 4% Latino, and 10% Black workers.

On gender:

• Male senior managers or executives outnumbered women roughly two-to-one;
• While there were fewer women in the data (47%), they comprised 54% of those in the lowest pay range, earning $32,239 or less.
• Of the reported non-binary workers, less than 10% were in the highest pay range, $144,560-plus.

Business, Consumer Services and Housing Secretary Tomiquia Moss stated: "While California continues to have one of the lowest gender pay gaps in the nation, we can't rest until we make much more progress. These numbers show where employers can focus efforts to bridge those gaps to provide opportunity and success for all Californians, and to make the phrase equal pay for equal work a reality."

Equal pay does not mean an employer has to pay everyone performing substantially similar work the same amount. Employers may take into account seniority; merit; measured production; and/or other relevant factors, not gender, race, or ethnicity.

Equal pay reports for 2025 are due on May 14.

Take-Aways:

Employers need to ensure they pay men and women and people of different races and ethnicities the same pay for the same work, with disparities based only on permitted performance and other bona fide criteria.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Payroll Data Reporting: May 8, 2024 Deadline for Companies with 100+ on Payroll (March 15, 2024)
• Employer's Mandatory Show & Tell: New State Guidance on Pay Rate Transparency (January 13, 2023)
• For the Record: Sound Management Practices for Personnel Documentation (August 14, 2020)

Helena Kobrin
April 11, 2025