What's New In Employment Law?

Earlier this month, a coalition of 70 U.S. House Democrats led by Reps. Mark Takano, Bobby Scott, and Suzanne Bonamici accused Andrea Lucas—the current Acting Chair of the EEOC—of downgrading and dismissing discrimination claims based on gender identity. They allege she “reclassified such cases as meritless,” halted ongoing lawsuits, removed gender‑neutral “X” markers from forms, and leaned on a Trump-era executive order that narrowly defines sex as binary.

This push by Congress clashes head-on with the landmark 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County ruling, in which the Supreme Court affirmed that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Why It Matters for Employers

• If the EEOC deprioritizes gender identity claims, fewer investigations may move forward, which will undermine the agency’s role as a protector of LGBTQ+ rights in the workplace.
• Employers already face a patchwork environment: federally, courts recognize gender identity protections, but agency enforcement may wane. This fact adds complexity to internal DEI policies and compliance mechanics.
• Workers denied EEOC support may bring more private lawsuits. Employers should reassess risk management, including updating policies, increasing training, and tracking internal complaints.
• This controversy highlights how shifts in presidential administrations and executive orders reshape workplace discrimination enforcement. Employers should monitor policy changes to stay proactive.

Action Plan for Employers

• Verify that your complaint procedures allow gender identity issues to be escalated, regardless of EEOC involvement.
• Provide enhanced training for HR, DEI, and legal personnel to ensure understanding of evolving Title VII interpretations and California’s protections under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
• Check for inclusive language in your policies and procedures and ensure they consistently reflect non-binary options.
• Consider contacting your legal counsel if you have questions or concerns.

Although Bostock remains good law, agency enforcement inconsistency may widen the gap between legal theory and workplace reality.

The post Congressional Democrats Accuse the EEOC Accused of Undermining Trans and Nonbinary Protections first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Earlier this year, we covered Assembly Bill 2499, a significant new law expanding workplace protections for victims of crime. As of January 1, 2025, California employers have several new obligations—including providing written notice to employees about their rights under this law.  (The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) will issue the notice by July 1, 2025.) Here’s what you need to know in the meantime.

Who’s Covered

AB 2499 broadened the definition of “victim” to include anyone subjected to a qualifying act of violence, not just domestic violence or stalking. Under the law:

• Employees who are victims of crime may take time off to protect their health, safety, or welfare—or that of their child.
• Employers with 25 or more employees must offer these same protections when a family member of an employee is the victim.

When and How to Notify

Employers must provide the written notice:

• At time of hire
• Annually
• Upon request
• If an employee discloses they or their family member is a crime victim

Additionally, the notice must be posted in a conspicuous workplace location, alongside other mandatory postings.

What About Time Off

Employees can use California paid sick leave or other available paid time off when taking leave under this law. While advance written notice is preferred, it’s not required if the situation prevents it. Employers may request documentation following an unscheduled absence, but only to confirm that a crime occurred.

Reasonable Accommodations

Employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking are also entitled to reasonable safety accommodations at work—such as a shift change, transfer, or reassignment. Employers must:

• Engage in a timely, interactive process
• Evaluate accommodations based on the employee’s individual safety needs

No Retaliation. Period.

The law is clear: employers may not retaliate against employees for exercising their rights under AB 2499. This includes:

• Requesting time off
• Seeking legal remedies like a restraining order
• Requesting an accommodation

Employers also have a duty to maintain the confidentiality of any employee disclosing their victim status.

What Should Employers Do Now

1. Review your policies on time off, accommodations, and retaliation.
2. Train HR and management on how to respond if an employee discloses they are a victim of violence.
3. Reach out for guidance if you’re unsure how to comply—the penalties for missteps can be costly.
4. Keep your eyes out for the CRD notice in the next few weeks.

Need Help? We’re Here.

At Shaw Law Group, we help employers stay ahead of California’s evolving workplace laws. From policy updates to supervisor training and everything in between, our team provides practical, no-nonsense advice that works in the real world. Contact us to learn how we can support your compliance efforts.

The post California Releases Model Crime Victims Notice: What Employers Need to Know first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

The past few weeks have been busy with EEO developments in California and under federal law.

California—CRD Issues a New Age Discrimination Fact Sheet

In May 2025, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) issued a fact sheet addressing the legal protections against age discrimination in the workplace. Under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), those protections generally begin at 40 years of age, unless an employer discriminates against an applicant or employee based on the mistaken belief that they are at least 40 years of age.

The fact sheet lists the following examples of conduct that would violate the FEHA: 

• Excluding older people when hiring—for example, “Looking for someone young and energetic to join the team.”
• Asking about a candidate’s age before hiring—for example, an employer may not ask an applicant to share their age or date of birth on a job application or during an interview or other pre-hire conversation.
• Giving lower wages or benefits because of age—for example, an employer may not pay employees who are 40 years of age and older less than younger employees in the same role because the employer believes older employees are more financially secure and less likely to have costs related to student loans or a home mortgage.
• Denying a promotion because of an individual’s age
• Laying off or forcing retirement because of an individual’s age
• Making comments, jokes, or insults about age—for example, repeatedly making comments such as, “Okay, Boomer!”

Federal–U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Higher Standard for Reverse Discrimination Cases

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a federal appeals court had wrongly imposed an evidentiary standard in a reverse discrimination employment case brought under Title VII. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, Ames, a heterosexual, claimed that she had not only been passed over for a new position with the Ohio Department of Youth Services but had also been demoted to a lower position than her current one with the new position and her current position being filled by homosexuals. These claims formed the basis of her allegation that she had suffered employment discrimination based on her sexual orientation—heterosexual.

Both lower federal courts rejected Ames’ claims because as a member of a majority group, she  failed to meet her additional prima facie burden of showing “background circumstances” to support her allegation that the employer engaged in “reverse discrimination.”

The Court held that the additional “background circumstances” requirement is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and other Supreme Court cases. The relevant provision of Title VII “makes it unlawful ‘to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’” The Court determined that this language applies the same protections to everyone regardless of whether they are a member of a minority or majority group, and that “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority group plaintiffs alone.” Additionally, the Court pointed to several prior Supreme Court decisions in which the justices made clear that the standard for showing discrimination under Title VII “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”

Although the Ames decision does not affect the underlying legal or burden-shifting framework for Title VII employment discrimination cases, it does resolve a split among lower federal appeals courts as to the application of the “background circumstances” requirement. In effect, the decision affirms that the legal framework itself cannot be applied in a discriminatory manner depending on the protected status of the individual alleging employment discrimination. This decision also serves as a reminder for employers to review their current policies regarding internal complaints and other practices to ensure fairness.

The post California and Federal Employment Discrimination Update first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

With summer unofficially starting and temperatures in areas throughout California recently reaching near or over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, Cal/OSHA is urging employers to help protect workers from heat illness at both outdoor and indoor worksites. Because heat illness is a serious and potentially deadly hazard, employers are mandated to implement protective measures for their employees. Cal/OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Standards specify what measures should be taken for both indoor and outdoor employees to prevent worker exposure to heat illness.

The regulations governing heat illness prevention in indoor places of employment went into effect on July 23, 2024. These standards apply to most workplaces, such as restaurants, warehouses, and manufacturing facilities, where the indoor temperature reaches 82 degrees Fahrenheit. Requirements include providing water, rest, cool-down areas, and training.

For outdoor worksites, the heat illness prevention regulations require employers to provide the following:

• Water – Access to fresh and cool water so that each worker can drink at least 32 ounces of water per hour.
• Rest– A preventative cool-down rest in the shade is allowed whenever workers feel the need to prevent themselves from overheating.
• Shade– Workers may request access to shade anytime, and employers must provide it. A shaded area must be present when temperature exceeds 80 degrees.

In industries relating to agriculture, construction, landscaping, oil and gas extraction, and transportation of agricultural products, construction materials, or other heavy materials, Cal/OSHA requires additional high-heat protections when the temperatures at outdoor worksites reaches 95 degrees. The high heat standard includes ensuring employees are observed regularly for signs of heat illness and establishing effective communication methods. 

Employers with either indoor or outdoor worksites must maintain a written prevention plan and facilitate effective training for supervisors to recognize the common signs and symptoms of heat illness and the steps to take in case of an emergency. The prevention plan must be written in English and in the language understood by the majority of the employees, and made available to employees at the worksite.

Cal/OSHA has numerous resource for employers including a Comparison Chart of Indoor and Outdoor Heat Illness Prevention Standards and a Heat Illness Prevention online tool. In addition, Cal/OSHA has established the Heat Illness Prevention (HIP) Network, a voluntary partnership aimed at increasing awareness among employers and workers about the importance of preventing heat illness in California and the importance of taking steps to prevent work-related illnesses and fatalities. To join the HIP Network, email HIPNetwork@dir.ca.gov.

The post Cal/OSHA Reminds Employers to Prevent Heat Illness first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Since April 2024, state employees have been required to return to the office at least two days per week. However, in March of this year, Governor Newsom announced that, effective July 1, 2025, most state employees must be onsite four days per week. Limited telework exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis, and workers who were hired with a telework arrangement will be able to continue working remotely.  California state employers are now facing a surge in accommodation requests for fully remote work, and other challenges related to complying with the order.

In issuing the mandate through Executive Order N-22-25, Governor Newsom stated, “In-person work makes us all stronger — period. When we work together, collaboration improves, innovation thrives, and accountability increases. That means better service, better solutions, and better results for Californians, while still allowing flexibility.” The executive order also noted that “several leading private sector employers have recently increased in-person work requirements, including some implementing full-time in-person requirements, and a number of public sector employers, including in California, have likewise recently increased in-person work expectations.”

The order contains the following key directives:

• State agencies offering a hybrid telework policy will implement a default of four in-office days per week beginning July 1, 2025, allowing for case-by-case telework exceptions consistent with the executive order. CalHR has issued statewide guidance on appropriate exceptions that will address, among other topics, employees whose positions require telework and employees who do not live near their duty stations and were hired with a mutually agreed-upon telework arrangement.
• State agencies and departments must develop plans to accommodate the increase in in-person work, including with respect to workplace facilities and employee transportation options.  
• The Government Operations Agency, the Department of General Services, and CalHR, will support agencies and departments in implementing the order.
• CalHR will promptly notify impacted bargaining units.

In addition, the executive order provides that CalHR will identify job openings that align with the skills of former federal employees, particularly in firefighting, weather forecasting and modeling, natural resource management, medical and mental health care, and the sciences.

Although there are pending legal challenges to the mandate, California state HR professionals, EEO officers, and legal counsel responsible for interpreting and applying the law, managing the interactive process, and avoiding compliance pitfalls should plan on participating in this our upcoming webinar facilitated by Jen Shaw. This timely and focused session will include the following topics:

• The requirements of Executive Order N-22-25
• Remote work as a reasonable accommodation under FEHA and the ADA
• Navigating the interactive process and documentation
• Avoiding retaliation, inconsistency, and legal missteps
• Union challenges and legal developments
• Practical guidance tailored to state employer environments

Private sector employers should take note, too.

The post California’s State Employee Return-to-Office Mandate first appeared on Shaw Law Group.