What's New in Employment Law?

From time to time, HR hears a familiar complaint: “Employees are speaking another language, and it’s making others uncomfortable.”

The impulse to step in is understandable. But in California, restricting language use at work is one of the quickest ways to create legal exposure—and just as importantly, to damage morale and trust.

California Law Leaves Little Room for Language Policing

California treats language restrictions as closely tied to national origin discrimination. “English-only”: rules are presumed unlawful unless the employer can show a clear business necessity, and even then, the rule must be narrowly defined and consistently enforced.

The risk goes beyond banning a language outright. Prohibiting certain dialects of Spanish, correcting accents, or disciplining employees for “how” they speak is equally problematic. Regulators and courts view these distinctions as proxies for national origin, even if the employer believes the issue is professionalism or clarity.

The Cultural Damage Often Outlasts the Legal Risk

Even when no claim is filed, language restrictions frequently undermine workplace culture.

Employees who are told they cannot speak their primary language—particularly during breaks or non-customer-facing work—often feel singled out, monitored, or disrespected. The result is predictable: disengagement, reluctance to speak up, and erosion of trust in HR.

Once employees perceive HR as policing language rather than supporting communication, every future issue becomes harder to manage.

What HR Should Focus On Instead

The goal is not to control language—it’s to ensure effective communication.

Define when English is truly required

If English is necessary for safety, teamwork, or customer interactions, be specific. Meetings, safety briefings, and public-facing roles may justify requirements. Breaks and private conversations generally do not.

Train supervisors before problems arise

Many issues begin when supervisors create their own rules. They should not impose English-only expectations, comment on accents or dialects, or assume employees are being disrespectful because they don’t understand the conversation.

Address exclusion without banning language

Complaints about language are often complaints about feeling left out. HR can encourage inclusive meeting practices, summaries where appropriate, and team norms that promote clarity—without singling out multilingual employees.

Audit handbook language carefully

Policies referencing language use should avoid blanket restrictions, explain legitimate business reasons, and emphasize respect for multilingual employees. Poorly drafted policies frequently are cited in discrimination claims.

Treat dialect policing as an early warning sign

Concerns about “how” Spanish is spoken, rather than whether work is getting done, are a red flag. These issues call for education and leadership coaching, not discipline.

The Bottom Line

Language rules are rarely about communication, and almost always about control. In California, that’s a losing strategy.

If employees are getting the work done, collaborating effectively, and treating each other with respect, the language they use is rarely the problem. Regulating how people speak—especially which languages or dialects are deemed “acceptable”—is far more likely to damage morale and invite scrutiny than improve operations.

The smarter HR approach focuses on clarity, inclusion, and legitimate business needs, not linguistic conformity. When HR solves communication gaps without turning language into a compliance issue, trust stays intact and risk goes down.

The post Why Policing Language at Work is a Risky Move first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

When events like what’s unfolding in Minneapolis dominate the news cycle, they don’t stay outside the workplace. Employees bring their reactions, fears, anger, grief, and opinions with them — into meetings, breakrooms, Slack channels, and client calls.

For California employers, these moments are especially challenging. Leaders want to acknowledge what employees are experiencing without taking political sides, maintain productivity without appearing indifferent, and avoid legal missteps in an already emotionally charged environment.

The reality is this: employers cannot — and should not try to — pretend these conversations aren’t happening. But they also are not required to allow workplace discussions to spiral into conflict or harm.

Why These Conversations Create Risk

High-profile incidents involving race, policing, violence, or social unrest often intersect directly with workplace protections. For some employees, these events feel deeply personal. For others, they prompt strong opinions that escalate quickly.

In the workplace, that combination can lead to:

• Tension between coworkers
• Claims of harassment or hostile work environment
• Allegations of retaliation
• Managers saying too much — or nothing at all — and making things worse

California employers face heightened exposure because state law places broad responsibility on employers to prevent and correct workplace conduct that crosses legal lines, even when it stems from current events rather than traditional workplace disputes.

What Employers Are — and Are Not — Required to Do

Employers often feel caught between two extremes: allowing unlimited discussion or shutting it down entirely. Neither is required.

Employers are not required to:

• Take a political position on current events
• Issue an organization-wide statement
• Allow debate during work time that disrupts operations
• Tolerate speech that targets coworkers based on protected characteristics

At the same time, overly broad bans or inconsistent enforcement can create risk of their own, particularly in California, where certain political activity and concerted activity are protected.

Employers should focus on conduct — not belief.

Managing Workplace Conversations Effectively

The most effective approach is to reinforce existing expectations, rather than creating new rules in the heat of the moment.

That means reminding employees that:

• Professionalism and respect remain workplace requirements
• Disagreements must not become personal or hostile
• Harassment and discrimination are not tolerated, regardless of the topic

Managers are critical in this process. They should be prepared to redirect conversations that become heated, avoid sharing personal opinions in a supervisory role, and escalate concerns to HR early. A single off-the-cuff comment by a manager can create far more exposure than the employee conversation that prompted it.

Watch for Red Flags

Employers should remain alert for warning signs that discussions about current events are crossing legal or cultural lines, including:

• Racial, religious, or national origin stereotypes
• Dismissive comments about a coworker’s lived experience
• Targeting employees who speak up — or those who choose not to
• Unequal enforcement of workplace rules based on perceived viewpoints

Intervention should be based on behavior, not ideology, and applied consistently.

Be Thoughtful About Communications

Some organizations choose to acknowledge major events like Minneapolis directly; others do not. Either approach can be lawful. Problems arise when messages are rushed, overly emotional, or pressure employees to align with a particular viewpoint.

If employers do communicate, messages should be:

• Brief and neutral
• Focused on workplace expectations and respect
• Clear that the workplace remains a professional environment

The Bottom Line

The workplace does not exist in a vacuum — but it also is not a forum for political or social conflict. Events like what’s happening in Minneapolis are heavy and emotional. How employers respond in these moments matters.

California employers should focus on:

• Managing conduct, not beliefs
• Supporting employees without endorsing positions
• Training managers to respond thoughtfully
• Addressing issues early, before they become legal problems

Handled well, these moments can reinforce trust and stability. Handled poorly, they can create lasting legal and cultural damage.

If you need guidance on employee communications, manager training, or navigating workplace issues tied to current events, Shaw Law Group regularly advises employers through exactly these situations — with an emphasis on prevention, clarity, and calm leadership.

The post Talking About Minneapolis — and Other Current Events — at Work first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

California pay scale requirements have been in place for several years, yet many employers remain uncertain about what compliance truly requires. Now that we are in 2026, recent amendments to California’s pay transparency laws make one point clear. Compliance is no longer satisfied by posting a pay range and moving on. The focus is now on whether the pay scale reflects reality.

Labor Code section 432.3 requires covered California employers to disclose pay scales in job postings and to provide a pay scale upon request to applicants and employees (Lab. Code, § 432.3 (a), (c)). Although many employers initially treated pay transparency as a posting requirement, enforcement agencies and plaintiffs’ attorneys are increasingly focused on a different question: Was the pay range meaningful and made in good faith?

What is a “Pay Scale” Under California’s 2026 Amendments

Effective January 1, 2026, amendments to California’s pay scale law clarified what qualifies as a compliant pay scale. A pay scale must reflect a good-faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position at the time of hire (Lab. Code, § 432.3 (a)). This is not a theoretical range, a long-term promotional ceiling, or a placeholder tied loosely to a job title. It is the range the employer genuinely expects to use when making an offer.

This clarification matters because many employers responded to earlier pay transparency laws by posting extremely broad pay ranges. Although wide ranges may have felt safer, they often undermine the purpose of the statute and increase legal risk. A pay scale that spans tens of thousands of dollars without a clear hiring rationale can invite scrutiny, particularly when actual offers consistently land at one end of the range.

How Pay Scale Compliance Connects to California’s Equal Pay Law

Pay scale compliance does not exist in isolation. It is closely tied to California’s Equal Pay Act. The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from paying employees different wage rates for substantially similar work based on sex, race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics, unless the employer can establish a bona fide factor justifying the difference (Lab. Code, § 1197.5 (a), (b)).

When evaluating equal pay claims, enforcement agencies and courts look beyond base wages alone. Compensation includes wages and other forms of remuneration, which may include bonuses, incentive pay, and equity-based compensation (Lab. Code, § 1197.5 (a)). Pay scales that are disconnected from actual hiring practices can make it far more difficult for employers to defend pay decisions under California’s equal pay law.

Ongoing Liability for Pay Decisions

Another issue California employers often underestimate is the continuing nature of pay violations. Each paycheck that reflects an unlawful pay practice may constitute a separate violation, extending potential liability over time (Lab. Code, § 1197.5 (h)). As a result, outdated or poorly supported pay scales do not simply create risk at the point of hire. They can compound exposure if they continue to influence compensation decisions.

Failure to comply with California pay scale disclosure requirements can also result in civil penalties enforced by the Labor Commissioner, with penalties assessed on a per-violation basis (Lab. Code, § 432.3 (d)).

What California Employers Should Do Now

For California employers, the takeaway is not that pay transparency is unmanageable. Rather, compliance requires intention. Job postings should reflect what the employer actually expects to pay new hires. Pay ranges should align with real hiring practices, not aspirational future growth. Employers should be able to explain how pay scales are set and why individual offers fall where they do within the range.

Hiring managers also need guidance. Many pay transparency violations occur not because HR policies are flawed, but because managers treat posted pay ranges as flexible suggestions rather than legally meaningful representations. Training managers on California pay scale requirements is one of the most effective ways to reduce risk.

The Bottom Line on California Pay Scales in 2026

California’s pay transparency laws are not designed to eliminate discretion, but they do require accountability. Employers who take a thoughtful approach to pay scales, document compensation decisions, and align job postings with actual practices are in the strongest position to comply with California law and defend their choices.

If you are unsure whether your current pay scales would withstand scrutiny in 2026, now is the time to review them. Small, proactive adjustments can prevent far more significant problems later.

The post California Pay Scale Rules in 2026 first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

California employers are now navigating SB 294, which requires employers to provide employees with a workplace “Know Your Rights” notice addressing interactions with law enforcement, including immigration enforcement, and certain constitutional protections. To assist employers, the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) has published a model template notice here.

At first glance, using the DIR template may seem like the safest option. After all, it is government-issued and clearly intended to promote compliance. But as with many well-intentioned agency templates, employers should pause before adopting it wholesale. Compliance with SB 294 does not require employers to use the DIR’s version, and for many workplaces, doing so may introduce unnecessary risk, confusion, and operational challenges.

Below are several reasons why employers may want to consider a customized, employer-specific notice instead.

1. The Template Goes Well Beyond What SB 294 Requires

SB 294 is fundamentally a notice statute. Its purpose is to inform employees of certain rights and protections—it does not require employers to educate employees on how to assert claims, file lawsuits, or challenge employer decisions.

The DIR template, however, includes expansive explanations of constitutional rights, references to recording law enforcement, and language that reads more like advocacy material than a neutral workplace notice. While none of this is unlawful, it goes well beyond what the statute requires and may inadvertently reframe the notice as a call to action rather than an informational document.

For many employers, especially those focused on maintaining trust and clarity in the workplace, more is not always better.

2. The DIR Language is Likely to Create Confusion, Not Clarity

One of the most common challenges we see with mandated workplace postings is misinterpretation. Employees often assume that if something is in a required notice, it reflects employer policy or guidance on how to behave at work.

The DIR template includes generalized constitutional principles that apply in public spaces and law enforcement encounters broadly—not necessarily in the workplace context or during working time. Without additional explanation, employees may reasonably (but incorrectly) believe the notice authorizes conduct at work that is inconsistent with company policies, operational needs, or safety requirements.

Employers are then left answering questions—and managing expectations—that the statute never intended to raise.

3. The Template Can Undermine an Employer’s Neutral Role

Most employers strive to remain neutral and professional when it comes to politically sensitive or emotionally charged issues. The DIR template, while well-meaning, adopts a tone that some employers may view as one-sided or advocacy-driven.

This is particularly concerning for public sector employers and employers with diverse workforces where maintaining neutrality is essential. A notice that appears to encourage adversarial thinking or distrust—rather than simply explaining legal rights—can undermine workplace culture and distract from the employer’s role as a facilitator of compliance and safety.

SB 294 does not require employers to take a position; it requires them to provide notice.

4. It Does Not Account for Industry-Specific or Workplace-Specific Realities

A single template cannot account for the wide range of California workplaces. What makes sense in one environment may be confusing or impractical in another.

For example:

• Highly regulated workplaces may already have detailed protocols for responding to law enforcement inquiries.
• Safety-sensitive workplaces may need to clarify limits on recording or movement during work hours.
• Unionized environments may require coordination with collective bargaining agreements.

Using the DIR template without tailoring it to the workplace can create conflicts between the notice and existing policies—or worse, suggest that policies no longer apply.

5. The Template May Increase Litigation Risk

Ironically, one of the biggest risks of using the DIR template is that it may invite disputes that would not otherwise exist.

By including broad statements about rights without context, the notice may be cited by employees or their representatives to argue that the employer endorsed certain interpretations of the law or failed to live up to expectations the employer never intended to create.

A carefully drafted, compliant notice that tracks the statute more closely can reduce this risk while still satisfying SB 294’s requirements.

6. Employers Are Allowed—and Often Better Served—by Customization

SB 294 does not mandate use of the DIR template. Employers are permitted to provide their own notice, so long as it meets the statutory requirements regarding content, timing, and distribution.

A customized notice allows employers to:

• Use clear, neutral, plain-language explanations
• Align the notice with existing policies and procedures
• Avoid unnecessary legal commentary
• Reduce confusion and follow-up questions
• Maintain consistency with workplace culture and tone

In short, customization allows employers to comply without overcorrecting.

The Bottom Line

The DIR template is a tool—but it is not a requirement, and it is not always the best fit. For many employers, particularly those focused on clarity, neutrality, and risk management, a tailored SB 294 notice will be the more practical and defensible approach.

As with many California compliance obligations, the goal should not be to say the most – it should be to say exactly what the law requires, no more and no less.

If you have questions about SB 294, the DIR template, or whether your workplace notice strikes the right balance, Shaw Law Group regularly advises employers on compliance strategies that are both legally sound and operationally realistic. We are happy to help you assess your options and avoid unintended consequences.

The post More Thoughts About the “Know Your Rights Act” Notice first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has released an updated Healthy Workplaces/Healthy Families Act (HWHFA) paid sick leave poster, and employers should make sure the most current version is on display.

The revised poster, available on the DLSE’s website here, reflects recent statutory changes clarifying how paid sick leave may be used alongside certain other protected leaves—a reminder that paid sick leave in California rarely operates in a vacuum.

What Changed?

In 2024, California expanded employee leave rights related to victims’ leave and participation in court proceedings, including jury service. Building on those changes, Assembly Bill 406, which Governor Newsom signed in 2025, made technical amendments to the paid sick leave statute to confirm that employees may use accrued paid sick leave during these types of absences.

As clarified by the updated law, employees may now use paid sick leave for additional purposes, including:

• Serving on a jury
• Appearing in court to comply with a subpoena or other court order as a witness
• Obtaining relief related to a qualifying act of violence to protect the employee’s (or their child’s) health, safety, or welfare
• Attending judicial proceedings when the employee or a family member is a victim of certain violent or serious crimes and their rights are at issue
• Obtaining specified victim-related treatment and services (for employers with 25 or more employees)

What Does the Poster Cover?

In addition to highlighting these expanded uses, the revised poster continues to summarize the core paid sick leave rules employers are already familiar with, including:

• Employees’ right to use paid sick leave for diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition—or for preventive care—for themselves or a family member
• The prohibition against retaliation or discrimination for requesting or using paid sick leave

Your Action Items

Be sure you are displaying the January 2026 version of the HWHFA poster in a location where employees can easily see and read it. As with all required workplace postings, an outdated notice can create unnecessary—and avoidable—compliance risk.

Zooming out, this update is also a useful reminder that paid sick leave in California increasingly intersects with other protected leaves, court-related absences, and victim-protection laws. As these requirements continue to evolve, keeping postings, policies, and manager guidance aligned can be challenging.

If you have questions about paid sick leave, victims’ leave, jury duty, or related posting obligations, Shaw Law Group is available to help you stay compliant—and out of court.

The post California Labor Commissioner Publishes Updated Paid Sick Leave Poster first appeared on Shaw Law Group.