What's New in Employment Law?

Most public sector employment law problems do not begin with dramatic misconduct or obvious legal violations. They begin with ordinary workplace decisions made under pressure.

A supervisor informally adjusts a schedule without considering overtime implications. An accommodation request gets treated like a performance issue. A complaint is handled “off the books” to avoid disruption. An investigation begins before anyone defines scope, preserves documents, or evaluates retaliation risk.

Individually, these moments may seem manageable. Collectively, they create significant exposure for California public employers.

The Growing Gap Between Policy and Practice

Public agencies now operate at the intersection of employment law, labor relations, operational demands, public accountability, and rapidly evolving employee expectations. HR leaders are expected to move quickly while navigating FEHA, the ADA, CFRA, FMLA, labor agreements, civil service systems, constitutional protections, and agency-specific policies that do not always align neatly.

And unlike many private employers, public agencies often make these decisions under public scrutiny.

Years ago, many organizations focused on whether policies existed. Today, the greater issue is whether those policies are being applied consistently, thoughtfully, and defensibly in practice.

That distinction matters. Most liability does not come from the absence of a policy. It comes from the disconnect between policy language and operational reality.

A leave policy may technically comply with the law, but supervisors may not understand how protected leave intersects with performance management. An anti-retaliation policy may exist, but managers may still react defensively after employee complaints. An agency may have investigation protocols in place, yet inconsistent interviews, delayed responses, or poor documentation can still undermine the process.

Why Experience Alone Is Not Enough

One of the most common mistakes public employers make is assuming that experience alone protects against risk.

In reality, even sophisticated organizations can develop problematic practices over time because operational shortcuts become normalized before anyone evaluates them legally.

Supervisors begin discussing sensitive employee matters through texts or side conversations. Managers try to “help” struggling employees without involving HR early enough. Agencies delay investigations because of morale concerns or operational demands.

Practical decisions in the moment often become legal problems later.

At the same time, workplace issues rarely fit neatly into a single category anymore. A performance issue may also involve protected leave. A misconduct investigation may implicate accommodation obligations. A remote work dispute may raise labor relations concerns, retaliation allegations, and disability issues simultaneously.

That overlap requires agencies to think more strategically and more consistently than ever before.

What Effective Agencies Are Doing Differently

The agencies managing these challenges most effectively are usually not the ones with the harshest disciplinary cultures or the thickest policy manuals. They are the organizations investing in practical decision-making, consistent training, early issue recognition, and defensible processes.

In other words, they focus not just on compliance, but on execution.

That shift from policy to practice is becoming one of the defining challenges in California public sector employment law. It is also why investigations, accommodations, retaliation prevention, documentation practices, and supervisor training continue to dominate conversations among public employers. These are no longer isolated HR issues. They are operational leadership issues that directly affect culture, employee trust, and legal exposure.

Upcoming All-Day Workshop

Shaw Law Group will be discussing many of these trends and practical risk areas during our upcoming September 22, 2026, program, From Policy to Practice: Public Sector Employment Law in Action, a six-hour workshop focused on how public employers can better navigate the growing gap between written policy and real-world workplace management. Space is limited. Register here.

The post Where Public Sector Risk Really Starts first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

You have seen it play out. A strong employee needs flexibility. A manager wants to help. A decision gets made in the moment, practical, human, and well-intended. No one thinks twice about it. Months later, that same decision shows up in a demand letter.

This pattern is common in California workplaces. Employers don’t get into trouble because they don’t care. They get into trouble because real-world decisions are made faster than the processes designed to support them.

Flexibility Without Structure
Picture a manager adjusting a schedule so a high performer can handle family obligations. Maybe the employee works from home a few days a week or shifts their hours. No one documents the arrangement. No one evaluates whether the change affects overtime, expense reimbursement, or internal equity.

At the time, the decision feels right. Later, if the arrangement ends or other employees raise concerns, the employer has no clear record of what was agreed to or why. The story becomes inconsistent treatment or unpaid time, not thoughtful flexibility. California law focuses on what can be proven, not what was intended.

Accommodation by Instinct
Now think about how often supervisors try to solve medical or pregnancy-related issues on their own. An employee mentions a limitation. The supervisor adjusts duties or allows time off, trying to be supportive without escalating the issue.

That instinct is understandable, but it can derail the legal process. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the obligation is to engage in a structured, good faith interactive process based on medical information. When decisions happen informally, the employer loses control over that process. If the situation later breaks down, the lack of a documented analysis becomes the problem.

“We Trust Our Employees” and Wage Exposure
Most employers trust their teams. That trust shows up in how time is tracked and how work gets done. Employees are expected to take compliant meal breaks, record all hours worked, and manage their own workloads.

Then reality steps in. A high performer works through lunch to stay ahead. A manager sees it happen and says nothing because the work is getting done. Later, the employer argues that the employee chose to skip breaks.

That argument rarely works. California law asks whether the employer provided a real opportunity for a duty-free break and relieved the employee of all work. Knowledge, especially quiet, unspoken knowledge, undermines the defense. The same pattern shows up with off-the-clock work, after-hours emails, and quick tasks that never make it onto a time record.

Titles That Outpace Duties
Promotions often follow the same path. An employer wants to recognize someone who is doing excellent work. A new title and a salary increase follow, along with the assumption that the role is now exempt.

In practice, the job does not change much. The employee continues doing the same work, just with a new title. However, California law doesn’t look at titles; it looks at duties. If those duties remain primarily non-exempt, the classification risk is immediate.

This issue surfaces with interns and trainees as well. Programs are designed with good intentions, but if they do not meet legal standards, the individuals involved may be treated as employees entitled to wages and protections.

The Conversation That Becomes an Investigation
Workplace concerns rarely arrive in a neat package. A comment in a meeting. A complaint raised casually. An email that hints at something more. A manager looks into the issue informally, talks to a few people, and moves on.

That approach feels efficient but often creates exposure. If the issue later becomes a legal claim, the employer may struggle to show what it knew and what it did. In California, the absence of a clear record can matter as much as the underlying conduct.

Consistency Is Tested
Across these situations, the common thread is not bad intent. It is inconsistency. Decisions are made case-by-case, in the moment, without a framework that ties them together.

California law tests consistency. It asks whether similar situations were handled in similar ways, whether decisions were grounded in policy, and whether the employer can explain the reasoning behind its actions. When the answers depend on memory instead of documentation, the risk increases.

A More Defensible Way to Operate
Flexibility does not have to disappear. It just needs structure behind it. When supervisors and managers know when to pause, when to involve HR, and how to document decisions, the employer can support its team without creating unnecessary exposure.

That structure starts with policies that reflect how the business actually operates. It continues with training that helps leaders recognize when a situation has legal implications. It shows up in documentation that captures not just what was decided, but why.

Regular check-ins also matter. Practices drift. Managers develop habits. What worked last year may not align with current expectations. Reviewing how decisions are made in real time helps close the gap between intention and execution.

The Bottom Line
You are going to keep making judgment calls. That reality is not changing. In California, the question is whether those calls are supported by a process that holds up later. Good intentions may start the decision, but structure and consistency protect it.

The post When Good Intentions Create Liability first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

California employers routinely underestimate cell phone reimbursement. Labor Code section 2802 requires reimbursement for necessary business expenses, including personal cell phone use. The mistake is assuming the obligation only applies when use is substantial. It does not. Any work-related use can trigger reimbursement. A quick call, a text to a supervisor, or logging into a system from a personal device is enough. This is where liability starts to build.

Unlimited Plans Do Not Eliminate the Obligation
One of the most common missteps is relying on the idea that employees are not incurring additional costs. California law rejects that argument. The issue is not whether the employee pays more out of pocket. The issue is whether the employer has shifted a business expense to the employee. Even with an unlimited plan, employers must reimburse a reasonable percentage of the cost when personal phones are used for work.

Policies Are Where Employers Get Into Trouble
Many employers either lack a clear policy or rely on one that does not hold up. Requirements that employees submit detailed bills, prove increased costs, or show substantial use create risk. The law does not require that level of proof. The obligation sits with the employer. Policies that discourage reimbursement or make it difficult to obtain often become evidence in wage claims and PAGA actions.

Stipends Can Work If They Are Defensible
A flat monthly stipend is often the most practical approach. It creates consistency and reduces administrative burden. But the number has to be reasonable. A stipend chosen for convenience, without any connection to actual usage, is unlikely to satisfy the law. Employers should be able to explain how the amount was determined and revisit it as roles and usage change. One size does not always fit all.

Remote Work Increased the Exposure
Remote and hybrid work made this issue more visible. Employees now rely more heavily on personal devices for communication and access. What once felt occasional is now routine. That shift increases risk, especially in California where expense reimbursement claims are frequently included in class actions and PAGA cases. These claims are easy to assert and expensive to defend.

The Compliance Trap
Employers often treat this as a minor issue. It is not. Failure to reimburse can lead to wage claims, waiting time penalties, PAGA exposure, and attorneys’ fees. The risk is not the reimbursement itself. The risk is the cumulative liability that follows when the obligation is ignored or handled inconsistently.

What Employers Should Do Now
Start with a simple question. Are employees using personal cell phones for any work-related purpose. If the answer is “yes,” reimbursement is required. Review policies and remove unnecessary barriers. Evaluate any stipend for reasonableness and document the rationale. Train managers to support compliance, not undermine it.

Bottom Line
If personal cell phones are used for work, reimbursement is not optional. The cost of getting it right is predictable. The cost of getting it wrong is not.

The post Cell Phone Reimbursement Done Right first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

A company hires workers and calls them independent contractors. They sign agreements. They get 1099s. Everyone is aligned with what they are.

Until they’re not.

That’s exactly what happened in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court—a case that reshaped how California looks at independent contractors and made one thing very clear: You don’t get to decide classification. The law does.

Here’s the problem. In California, classification is not about what you call someone. It is not about what’s written in the agreement. It is not about what the worker prefers. And it is definitely not about what “makes sense” for your business. Classification is about how the relationship actually functions. And California applies that analysis aggressively.

Employers rarely get tripped up because of their bad intent. It’s speed. It’s trying to solve real business problems in real time. “We just need someone flexible—a contractor.” “They’re paid a salary—exempt.” “They’re learning—intern.” Those decisions feel practical. But California law is not built around what feels practical—it’s built around specific legal tests that don’t flex just because your situation is messy.

After Dynamex, California adopted the ABC test for independent contractors, and it is unforgiving. To classify someone as a contractor, you must prove: (A) they are free from your control and direction; (B) they perform work outside your usual course of business; and (C) they are independently established in that trade. Miss one of these, and they’re an employee. Not close. Not mostly. An employee.

And it’s not just contractors. The same problem shows up everywhere. Exempt versus non-exempt? Salary alone is not enough. Interns? The training must primarily benefit the intern, not the employer. Volunteers? Generally, that’s not a thing in for-profit businesses. Different labels, same issue: employers rely on assumptions instead of applying the actual legal standard.

What happens when this unravels is predictable, and expensive. Misclassification turns into overtime and minimum wage claims, missed meal and rest break liability, unreimbursed expenses, waiting time penalties, PAGA exposure, and often class or representative actions. And it rarely stops with one person. It spreads across the role.

The employers who stay out of trouble do one thing differently. They slow this down. They ask what the role actually looks like day-to-day, how much control they’re really exercising, and whether the classification meets the legal test and not just the business need. They make the decision at the front end, and they document it. Because fixing this later is always harder, and always more expensive.

The bottom line: Classification is not a label. It’s a legal conclusion. And when you get it wrong, it adds up fast.

The post Employee Misclassification: It Adds Up Fast first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Artificial intelligence has quietly made its way into HR’s day-to-day work. It shows up in performance reviews, investigation summaries, interview questions, and even discipline memoranda. For busy teams, it can feel like a lifesaver. Tasks that used to take an hour now take five minutes, and the output often looks polished and complete.
That is exactly why it is so easy to rely on it.
But AI is not a shortcut to good judgment. And that is where the risk starts.
Most AI tools are designed to generate language that sounds right, not to apply the law correctly or account for the specific context of a workplace. They do not know your organization, your past practices, or the history behind a particular employee situation. They are predicting what a good answer looks like based on patterns, not evaluating what the right answer is under California law.
That gap matters more than people think.
We are already seeing situations where HR professionals rely on AI-generated content that feels solid on the surface but misses something important underneath. Sometimes the issue is subtle. The explanation is slightly off, or the reasoning skips a key step. Other times, the problem is more direct. The output states something as fact that is not accurate, or offers guidance that does not hold up when you look at the actual legal standard.
Even more challenging, the same question asked twice can produce different answers. That kind of inconsistency is not just frustrating. It creates risk when HR is trying to make decisions that need to be consistent, documented, and defensible.
There is also the issue of tone and framing. AI can draft a clean, professional write-up, but it may unintentionally introduce language that sounds harsher than intended or, just as problematic, too vague to support a decision later. In the investigation context, which can affect how findings are characterized. In the discipline context, it negatively can affect whether the documentation actually supports the outcome.
And then there is confidentiality. Many HR professionals are inputting real employee scenarios into AI tools without considering where that information is going or how it is being stored. That is a problem, particularly in California, where privacy expectations are higher and regulators are paying attention.
None of this means employers should avoid AI. The reality is that it is already here, and it can be incredibly useful when used correctly. It can help organize thoughts, create a starting point, and save time on routine drafting. But it has to stay in its lane.
The employers who are navigating this well are treating AI as a first draft, not a final answer. They make sure a human being with actual judgment reviews and refines the output before it goes anywhere near a personnel file or a decision. They also are more thoughtful about when to use AI at all, especially in higher-risk situations involving hiring, discipline, or termination.
In California, that level of care is not optional. The legal standards are too specific, and the exposure is too real.
The bottom line is simple. AI can make HR faster, but it does not make it smarter. That still comes from the people using it.
When something goes wrong, of course, AI will not be explaining the decision. The employer will.

The post HR + AI: Smart Tool and Real Risk first appeared on Shaw Law Group.