What's New In Employment Law?

President Trump’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” has been making headlines, and for good reason — it’s packed with changes that directly impact employers and employees alike. Although much of the media coverage has focused on the political angle, HR professionals, payroll managers, and business owners need to be thinking about the very practical question: What does this new law mean for my workplace?

One of the most immediate effects of the bill is how it reshapes wage withholding, overtime rules, and ultimately, employee take-home pay. Employers will need to revisit their payroll calculations to ensure compliance and avoid costly errors. The bill also brings significant changes to Medicaid, SNAP, and healthcare coverage in California — programs on which many employees rely — which could spark questions, concerns, and even confusion in the workplace.

From a compliance standpoint, businesses will need to adjust payroll systems, update policies, and refresh employee communications. This isn’t just a technical exercise; clear communication will be essential to maintain trust and minimize disruption. When benefits or take-home pay change, employees notice — and leadership teams should be ready to address those concerns with transparency and empathy.

Finally, the bill includes new enforcement mechanisms that employers must take seriously. Being proactive now will help you avoid penalties later. That means reviewing your systems, preparing for questions, and aligning HR and finance teams on the changes.

Want a deeper dive? Join us on September 16 for our webinar, “Big Changes Ahead: The Big Beautiful Bill’s Impact on California Workplaces” where we’ll walk through:

• How the bill affects wage withholding, overtime, and employee take-home pay
• The implications for Medicaid, SNAP, and healthcare coverage in California
• What payroll and policy adjustments are required — and how to make them smoothly
• Strategies for anticipating and addressing employee concerns

This is a can’t-miss session for anyone responsible for compliance or employee communications. Reserve your spot today and make sure your organization is ready. 

Happy Monday!

About Shaw Law Group 

At Shaw Law Group, we do more than practice employment law—we partner with employers to build compliant, respectful, and productive workplaces. From day-to-day advice and counsel to impartial workplace investigations, proactive HR audits, dynamic training programs, and sensitive pre-litigation matters, our experienced team helps clients stay ahead of the curve—and out of court.

The post Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” – What Employers Need to Know first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Starting on October 1, 2025, California employers must follow new regulations from the Civil Rights Council (CRC) regarding “automated-decision systems”, or “ADS” — that is, tools that use AI, algorithms, or other computer processes to help make employment decisions.

What’s Covered?

An ADS is any technology that makes or influences decisions about jobs or benefits — like:

• Resume screening software
• Online assessments, puzzles, and tests
• Interview tools that analyze tone, facial expressions, or word choice
• Recruiting ads targeted to specific groups
• Data analytics using applicant or employee information

Importantly, basic tools (like spreadsheets or calculators) are not considered ADS if they don’t actually make employment decisions.

Why the New Rules Matter

The CRC’s position is clear: if an ADS results in discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, or any other protected characteristic, it’s unlawful under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Employers — and even outside vendors providing ADS tools — can be held liable for violating the CRC’s regulations.

Key Requirements

Recordkeeping: Keep all ADS-related records (applications, personnel files, ADS data) for four years.

Anti-bias testing: Not required, but highly recommended — courts may look for evidence of efforts to prevent bias.

Reasonable accommodations: ADS tools that measure skills, reactions, or communication styles must be flexible for applicants with disabilities or religious needs.

Takeaways for Employers

California employers should take the following steps to ensure compliance with the new regulations:

• Review your current hiring and HR technologies to ensure they will not be considered ADS
• Audit how your tools affect applicants and employees
• Keep ADS records organized and accessible
• Work with legal counsel and vendors to make sure your systems are compliant

The bottom line? AI and related tools can save time, but they also bring legal risk. Employers should use them carefully, document their workplace decisions, and put appropriate safeguards in place before October 1.

About Shaw Law Group 

At Shaw Law Group, we do more than practice employment law—we partner with employers to build compliant, respectful, and productive workplaces. From day-to-day advice and counsel to impartial workplace investigations, proactive HR audits, dynamic training programs, and sensitive pre-litigation matters, our experienced team helps clients stay ahead of the curve—and out of court.

The post New CRC Regulations on Automated Hiring Tools Take Effect October 1 first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

HR compliance never stands still, and the past few weeks have brought several notable updates. From new federal guidance on DEI programs to clarifications on paid sick leave calculations and evolving standards around religious accommodations, employers have plenty to keep on their radar.

DOJ Offers New Direction on DEI

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently issued a memorandum directed at federal agencies and federal-funding recipients, explaining how DEI programs must align with federal anti-discrimination laws. Although this guidance primarily is aimed at organizations that receive federal dollars, even private-sector employers without federal contracts should pay attention.

Of course, the DOJ’s guidance after heightened federal scrutiny of DEI efforts. President Trump’s early Executive Orders labeled certain DEI programs “unlawful,” and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) attempted to provide clarity earlier this year. Now, the DOJ has reinforced those boundaries, reminding employers that programs cannot discriminate on the basis of protected traits—even when well-intentioned.

The memorandum highlights specific practices that can cross the line, including:

• Giving advantages in hiring, promotions, or program participation based on race, sex, or other protected categories is unlawful, except in limited circumstances
• Relying on factors such as geography, cultural background, or “diversity statements” as indirect ways of targeting certain groups
• Dividing employees or resources based on race, gender, or other protected traits, including restrooms and similar facilities that must remain sex-segregated by biological sex (of course, this directive is in conflict with California’s requirement that employees be permitted to use facilities consistent with their gender identity)
• Mandating that candidate pools include a certain number of individuals from protected groups
• Programs that pigeonhole or exclude participants based on their protected status

To comply with federal law, the DOJ encourages employers to:

• Open all programs and trainings to qualified participants
• Base employment decisions on skills and performance-related criteria
• Avoid quotas and other demographic-driven targets
• Keep records of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for hiring and promotion decisions
• Scrutinize standards that appear neutral on their fact to ensure they aren’t indirect substitutes for protected traits
• Implement anti-retaliation policies and internal complaint systems

The bottom line? Carefully evaluate your DEI programs to ensure compliance, particularly where federal and state laws differ. California employers must pay special attention to restroom and facility-access rules, which are inconsistent with the DOJ’s position.

California Court Clarifies Sick Leave Pay for Exempt Outside Salespersons

Paid sick leave under California’s Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act (HWHF) has been in place since 2015, but questions lingered about how it applies to outside sales employees classified as exempt. The California Court of Appeal recently addressed this issue in Hirdman v. Charter Communications, LLC, and ruled that employers may calculate paid sick leave for outside salespersons at their base hourly rate—excluding commissions—provided they use the same method for other forms of paid leave.

The court’s decision diverges from the 2016 opinion letter of the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s (DLSE), which instructed employers to use a non-exempt calculation method that included commissions. The court concluded that the statute’s plain wording was clear: the term “exempt employees” includes outside salespersons, not only administrative, executive, or professional staff.

Religious Accommodation and Transgender Inclusion

Religious-accommodation requests often create tension when they conflict with inclusivity initiatives. A recent Seventh Circuit decision demonstrates the fact-specific nature of these situations.

In this case, a teacher was granted as an accommodation of their religious beliefs an exception to the school’s policy requiring the use of transgender students’ chosen names. Instead, the teacher called everyone by their last names. Some students reported feeling stigmatized, while others did not object. The school ultimately rescinded the accommodation and the teacher sued.

The Seventh Circuit (which does not include California) applied the Supreme Court’s Groff v. DeJoy standard and concluded that a jury—not the judge—must decide whether the teacher’s accommodation created an undue hardship. Under Groff, the hardship must be substantial, objectively reasonable, and directly caused by the accommodation itself. Good faith alone is insufficient. The Court also questioned whether the teacher’s beliefs were sincerely held, because he had previously used chosen names at a school ceremony. A jury will decide that issue as well.

What’s an employer to do?

• Keep thorough records of an accommodation’s actual workplace impact
• Demonstrate a clear causal link between the accommodation and any disruption to the workplace
• Do not rely on hypothetical risks or generalized concerns
• Recognize that good intentions do not substitute for proof of hardship
• Handle disputes in ways that reinforce both legal compliance and organizational values

Religious Accommodations and Flu Shots

Another recent case addressed religious objections to flu-shot mandates. An employee with more than 20 years of service requested a religious exemption to the mandate, which HR denied. She was suspended without pay but reinstated after filing suit. The Fifth Circuit ultimately dismissed the case on procedural grounds, but a strong dissent emphasized that even short-term suspensions can amount to discrimination under Title VII.

            The lessons for employers?

• Protect evolving beliefs without requiring employees to justify or explain changes
• Don’t minimize temporary harm; even short suspensions or delays in granting an accommodation may create liability
• Recognize the low threshold for harm; under Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, being treated worse because of one’s religious beliefs—even briefly—likely is actionable
• Delays matter

* * *

Yes, it’s hard to keep up. But we can do hard things. One step at a time.

About Shaw Law Group 

At Shaw Law Group, we do more than practice employment law—we partner with employers to build compliant, respectful, and productive workplaces. From day-to-day advice and counsel to impartial workplace investigations, proactive HR audits, dynamic training programs, and sensitive pre-litigation matters, our experienced team helps clients stay ahead of the curve—and out of court.

The post A Potpourri of Workplace Law Updates first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Managing employee medical leaves can be one of the most confusing challenges for California employers. You want to support your team, but what happens when the time off just keeps getting extended, with no clear return date?

The good news: California law does not require you to grant indefinite leave as a reasonable accommodation. A recent Court of Appeal decision, Manos v. J. Paul Getty Trust, reinforces this important principle under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

What the Law Requires

When employees exhaust protected leave under the FMLA, CFRA, or other laws, employers still need to consider whether the ADA or FEHA require additional accommodations. Sometimes that means more unpaid leave—but only if there’s a real expectation that the time off will help the employee return to work.

The law is clear:

• Leave may be a reasonable accommodation if it’s likely to allow the employee to come back and perform the essential functions of their position.
• Employers are not required to provide open-ended or indefinite leave.
• What’s “reasonable” depends on your company’s size, resources, and operations.

Okay.  So, how does this work in the world?

What Happened in the Manos Case?

George Manos, an HVAC technician, broke his leg and initially asked for medical leave. His employer, the Getty Trust, approved it—and even granted additional unpaid time off as an accommodation.

The problem? Manos kept asking for more leave, often with no definite return date. At one point, his doctor estimated it could take 12–18 months before he could possibly work again. Manos also declined to request any accommodations other than continuous time off.

After more than a year, the Getty concluded Manos would not be able to return in the near future and ended his employment. Manos then sued—but the courts sided with the Getty. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal held that indefinite leave is not required under FEHA.

Why the Manos Case Matters for Employers

The court’s decision in Manos is a helpful reminder that:

• You don’t have to hold a job open forever. Indefinite leave isn’t required.
• Each request should be evaluated carefully. Repeated extensions don’t automatically equal “indefinite,” but if there’s no foreseeable return, you may have the right to end the leave.
• Always engage in the interactive process. Document your conversations, explore alternatives, and show you made good-faith efforts.

Final Thoughts

Extended leave requests are tricky, and the line between “reasonable” and “indefinite” isn’t always clear. When in doubt, consult with employment counsel and ensure your documentation tells the full story of your efforts to accommodate.

Want to go deeper on how to handle these kinds of situations? Join us on September 10 and September 17 for our annual online intensive workshop, “Effectively Managing Leaves of Absence and Reasonable Accommodations: Intensive Workshop (Advanced Topics).”  We’ll cover leave management, reasonable accommodations, the interactive process, and practical strategies for compliance. You can register here. 

About Shaw Law Group 

At Shaw Law Group, we do more than practice employment law—we partner with employers to build compliant, respectful, and productive workplaces. From day-to-day advice and counsel to impartial workplace investigations, proactive HR audits, dynamic training programs, and sensitive pre-litigation matters, our experienced team helps clients stay ahead of the curve—and out of court.

The post Endless Medical Leaves? Not So Fast… first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

California employers must stay on top of developments in the law that may affect workplace policies, particularly those related to benefits eligibility and nondiscrimination. Although same-sex marriage has been recognized nationwide for nearly a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to revisit this issue. The likelihood of change is uncertain, but employers should understand the current landscape and what is at stake.

The Foundation: Obergefell v. Hodges

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. The decision required all states to both issue and recognize same-sex marriages, establishing nationwide marriage equality. This ruling has since guided workplace practices across the country, ensuring that employers must treat same-sex spouses the same as opposite-sex spouses when it comes to health benefits, family leave, and other spousal-related rights.

California’s Legal Protections

As usual, California has long been ahead of the curve in this area. Same-sex marriage became legal in the state in 2013, following years of litigation around Proposition 8. More recently, in 2024, California voters approved Proposition 3, which amended the state constitution to declare marriage a fundamental right for all couples. These state-level protections mean that regardless of federal developments, same-sex marriage remains firmly safeguarded in California.

A New Petition Before the Supreme Court

The current uncertainty arises from a petition filed in July 2025 by Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who gained national attention for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis is asking the Supreme Court to revisit Obergefell, arguing that the decision violated her First Amendment rights and calling it a “legal fiction.” If the Court were to grant review and ultimately overturn Obergefell, states could once again decide for themselves whether to permit or prohibit same-sex marriage. However, the 2022 federal “Respect for Marriage Act” would continue to require states to recognize marriages legally performed elsewhere.

Will the Court Reopen the Debate?

Most legal experts doubt the Court will overturn Obergefell. The Davis petition is viewed as procedurally narrow, focusing more on her personal liability than on the merits of marriage equality itself. Moreover, undoing a decade of settled law would create enormous legal uncertainty for families and employers alike (although this Court certainly has done so in other contexts). The Court will decide later this year whether it will take up the case, leaving many of us wondering where the justices may be headed.

Implications for Employers

For California employers with no out-of-state operations, the practical impact of any change in the Obergefell decision will be irrelevant: same-sex marriage is recognized under both state and federal law, and employees’ spouses must be treated equally for all workplace purposes. This protection covers benefit administration, leave policies, and nondiscrimination practices. Even if the Supreme Court were to revisit Obergefell, California’s constitutional protections and the federal “Respect for Marriage Act” provide strong safeguards that ensure same-sex marriages remain valid in this state.

That said, employers should remain attentive. A decision by the Court to hear the Davis petition—even if it ultimately leaves Obergefell intact—could reignite public debate and employee concerns. Proactive communication, a review of workplace policies, and a reaffirmation of an organization’s commitment to equality may help maintain trust and compliance during a period of uncertainty.

Conclusion

Same-sex marriage remains firmly protected today, and California employers’ obligations have not changed. Still, the Supreme Court’s decision on whether to take up the Davis petition is a reminder of how quickly the legal landscape can shift. By staying informed and prepared, employers can ensure their workplaces remain compliant, inclusive, and aligned with both legal requirements and organizational values.

About Shaw Law Group 

At Shaw Law Group, we do more than practice employment law—we partner with employers to build compliant, respectful, and productive workplaces. From day-to-day advice and counsel to impartial workplace investigations, proactive HR audits, dynamic training programs, and sensitive pre-litigation matters, our experienced team helps clients stay ahead of the curve—and out of court.

The post Same-Sex Marriage Remains Protected — But Employers Should Stay Vigilant first appeared on Shaw Law Group.