What's New in Employment Law?

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.

      

California employers often focus on whether an employee’s complaint has legal merit. That instinct makes sense. If the complaint is wrong, exaggerated, or based on a misunderstanding of the law, it is easy to assume the risk is low.

That assumption is where employers get into trouble.

A recent California Court of Appeal decision makes the point. In Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc., the court confirmed that an employee can pursue a retaliation claim even when the underlying complaint is legally incorrect, so long as the employee reasonably believed a violation of law occurred.

That is the disconnect employers often miss.

The Shift Employers Need to Understand

Under California law, an employee engages in protected activity when they complain about conduct they reasonably believe violates the law. That belief does not have to be correct. It only needs to be “reasonable.”

An employee may complain about something that is not actually unlawful. They may misunderstand wage and hour rules, misapply harassment standards, or assume unfair treatment is illegal discrimination. Even if the complaint is legally flawed, it can still trigger protection.

Once that protection is in play, the employer’s next steps matter more than the accuracy of the complaint itself.

Where Employers Get It Wrong

There are a few predictable missteps we continue to see.

Often, employers focus too heavily on proving the employee wrong. They investigate, determine there was no legal violation, and then move on as if the issue is resolved, even though it isn’t.

Employers also can allow frustration to influence their decision making. Managers may view the complaint as disruptive, unnecessary, or strategic. That frustration can show up in tone, documentation, and ultimately employment decisions.

Finally, timing can be a problem. Discipline or termination that follows closely after a complaint will almost always be scrutinized. Even when there are legitimate reasons, the optics are difficult and the burden on the employer becomes heavier.

The Real Risk Is the Response

The legal analysis in these cases often turns on the employer’s response, not the underlying complaint.

• Did the employer take the concern seriously?
• Did they conduct a fair and neutral investigation?
• Did they separate the complaint from subsequent employment decisions?
• Did they document legitimate business reasons clearly and consistently?

If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” the employer’s position becomes harder to defend.

In practice, juries often are less interested in whether the employee understood the law correctly and more interested in whether the employer acted fairly.

A Practical Framework That Holds Up

Employers do not need to treat every complaint as valid. They do need to treat every complaint as protected until proven otherwise.

A few practical steps make a significant difference:

• Pause before reacting. Train managers not to respond in the moment. Initial reactions are often what create risk.
• Investigate the complaint, not the employee. The goal is to understand what happened, not to discredit the person who raised the concern.
• Document the analysis. If the complaint is not legally supported, explain why in a clear, objective way. Avoid language that suggests the complaint was frivolous or made in bad faith unless you can truly support that conclusion.
• Separate decision making. If there are performance or conduct issues, make sure they are well documented and existed before the complaint or are clearly independent of it.
• Control the narrative internally. Loose comments by managers such as “this is why we should not have hired them” or “they are just trying to cause problems” can become key evidence.

Why This Matters More Now

Retaliation claims continue to be one of the most common and most successful claims employees bring in California. They are also among the most expensive to defend.

The reason is simple. These cases are fact driven and often turn on credibility, which makes them difficult to resolve early and unpredictable at trial.

The Bottom Line

You can be right about the law and still lose the case.

The safer approach is to assume that any workplace complaint may be protected and to respond in a way that would hold up under scrutiny. That means slowing down, documenting carefully, and keeping decisions grounded in legitimate business reasons that can be clearly explained.

In California, the question is not just whether the employee was right, but also whether the employer acted right.

The post Even “Wrong” Complaints Can Create Liability first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Bereavement leave feels like one of those areas where employers should be able to rely on instinct. An employee loses someone close to them, and the response seems obvious: be supportive, give them time, and move forward.

But in California, that approach, while well-intentioned, is no longer enough.

Since the enactment of Government Code section 12945.7, bereavement leave is not just a matter of compassion. It is a compliance issue, and employers, including Amazon, are already facing litigation for getting it wrong.

What the Law Actually Requires

California law requires employers with five or more employees to provide up to five days of bereavement leave upon the death of a qualifying family member. That includes a spouse, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, domestic partner, or parent-in-law.

The leave does not have to be paid. But—and this is where employers often miss the mark—employees must be permitted to use accrued paid leave during this time, including California Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act sick leave.

The timing also matters. The five days do not have to be consecutive, but they must be completed within three months of the date of death.

On paper, this all seems manageable. In practice, the risk shows up in how employers apply these rules.

Where Employers Are Getting Into Trouble

Most compliance issues are not about denying leave outright. They arise in the gray areas, where policies, practices, and assumptions collide.

One common mistake is asking for too much documentation. The law allows employers to request documentation, such as a death certificate, obituary, or written verification. But requiring it immediately, or denying leave while waiting for it, can create exposure, especially if the request feels intrusive or is inconsistently applied.

Another issue is misunderstanding who qualifies for leave. Employers sometimes deny leave for individuals who fall within the statutory definition, particularly with modern family structures. A rigid or outdated interpretation can quickly turn into a legal problem.

And then there is the biggest risk area: retaliation.

The Litigation Trend: Retaliation Claims

We are seeing more and more lawsuits where employees claim they were disciplined, terminated, or otherwise treated differently after taking bereavement leave.

These claims are not always about the leave itself. They are about what happens next.

An attendance issue that suddenly becomes “final.” A performance concern that escalates more quickly than usual. A termination decision that, timing-wise, is just a little too close to the leave.

Even when the employer believes the decision is justified, the optics matter, and so does the documentation.

The CFRA Confusion

One of the more nuanced areas is how bereavement leave intersects with other leave laws, particularly the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).

Bereavement leave itself is not CFRA leave. But the circumstances surrounding a death can trigger CFRA obligations. For example, if an employee cared for a family member with a serious health condition before their passing, that time may have been CFRA-protected.

Employers that fail to recognize this overlap risk analyzing the situation too narrowly and missing a broader compliance obligation.

A Practical Approach That Holds Up

This is one of those areas where a clean, consistent approach makes all the difference.

Start with a policy that tracks the statute, not just general language about “time off.” Make sure it clearly defines eligibility, timing, and documentation parameters.

Train managers to recognize that bereavement leave is protected. Their role is not to evaluate whether the employee “needs” the time; it is to ensure the request is handled appropriately and escalated when necessary.

And most importantly, slow down decision-making after an employee takes leave. If there are performance or conduct issues, they should be well-documented, consistent with past practice, and clearly unrelated to the leave.

Because in this area, the legal question is rarely just “Did you provide the leave?” Instead, court will ask, “What did you do before—and after?”

The Bottom Line

Bereavement leave is no longer just about doing the right thing. It is about doing the right thing the right way.

Employers that rely on instinct alone are taking on unnecessary risk. Employers that understand the legal framework, and apply it consistently, put themselves in a much stronger position.

And in a moment that is already difficult for employees, that kind of clarity matters

The post Bereavement Leave in California: Where Compassion Meets Compliance first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

California employers often assume that if an employee’s complaint is legally incorrect, it falls outside the scope of protected activity. That assumption is not only flawed—it is increasingly risky.

A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal, Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc., reinforces a principle that continues to gain traction in retaliation cases:

An employee can be wrong about the law, and still be protected from retaliation.

For employers, that shift matters.

The Legal Framework

Retaliation claims in California most commonly arise under Labor Code section 1102.5 and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Under both of the laws, courts focus on whether the employee engaged in protected activity.

Critically, that does not require the employee to be legally correct. Instead, the question is whether the employee had a reasonable belief that the conduct they were opposing was unlawful.

That distinction, between legal accuracy and reasonable belief, is where many employers get into trouble.

What Contreras Tells Us

In Contreras, the employee raised concerns about conduct that did not actually violate the law. From a legal perspective, the complaint failed. But the court did not end the analysis there.

Instead, it focused on the employee’s perspective: whether the employee believed the conduct was unlawful, and whether that belief was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Because that standard was met, the court allowed the retaliation claim to proceed.

In other words, the legal weakness of the underlying complaint did not eliminate the employer’s exposure for retaliation.

Where the Risk Shifts

This is the point many employers miss. The moment a complaint is made, the analysis shifts.

Employers tend to evaluate the substance of the complaint, but courts are focused on something else entirely: how the employer responded.

Once a concern is raised, the employer’s response—tone, timing, and documentation—becomes the center of the case. The employee’s legal accuracy fades into the background.

The Reasonable Belief Standard

The reasonable belief standard is intentionally flexible. Courts look at the situation from the employee’s standpoint, taking into account what they knew, what they observed, and whether their concern is the type of issue employees commonly associate with legal protections.

It is not a demanding standard. If the concern is plausible in context, that often is enough to move a retaliation claim forward.

So What?

The practical impact of Contreras is not subtle. Employers no longer can rely on the conclusion that a complaint is wrong as a basis for minimizing risk.

A complaint that is legally off-base can still trigger protected activity. And once that happens, any subsequent employment decision will be viewed through a retaliation lens.

This is where exposure develops. Not from the complaint itself, but from what happens next.

Employers that move too quickly to dismiss a concern, allow frustration to influence decision-making, or fail to clearly document legitimate business reasons create unnecessary risk.

A More Defensible Approach

The better approach is straightforward. Treat complaints as protected at the outset, ensure managers elevate rather than evaluate concerns, and carefully document employment decisions.

Most importantly, slow down the response. Many retaliation claims arise from avoidable missteps in the moment.

The Bottom Line

Contreras is a reminder that California continues to interpret protected activity broadly. Employers should stop asking whether the employee is right, and start focusing on whether their response will hold up under scrutiny.

The post Wrong About the Law…Still Protected? first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Most employers already collect emergency contact information during onboarding. It is one of those routine HR forms that gets completed on day one and then quietly sits in a personnel file.

Until now.

A new California requirement means that emergency contact forms are no longer just administrative paperwork. They are now part of your legal compliance obligations.

By March 30, 2026, you must give current employees the opportunity to designate an emergency contact and indicate whether that person should be notified if you have actual knowledge that the employee has been arrested or detained during work hours. Going forward, you must provide the same opportunity to employees at the time of hire.

If you have not updated your forms yet, now is a good time to take a look.

What the Law Requires

The rule itself is fairly straightforward. You must give employees the opportunity to:

• designate an emergency contact
• update that contact information during employment
• indicate whether that contact should be notified if you have actual knowledge the employee has been arrested or detained during work hours

The law does not require employees to provide an emergency contact. It only requires that you give them the opportunity to do so.

That distinction matters when it comes to documenting compliance.

Why?

California lawmakers adopted this rule in response to concerns about employees who are detained at work during immigration enforcement actions.

When that happens, employees can disappear from the workplace suddenly, leaving family members unaware of what happened or where the employee has been taken. The law is intended to give employees the ability to identify someone who should be notified in that situation.

For employers, the takeaway is simple: the emergency contact form you have always used now carries additional legal significance.

Now What?

Fortunately, this is an easy compliance fix. Before the March 30 deadline, take a few practical steps.

First, review your existing emergency contact form. Many employers already have one, but it likely does not include a place for employees to indicate whether they want that contact notified if they are arrested or detained during work hours.

Second, update the form to include that option.

Third, distribute the updated form to current employees before the March 30 deadline.

Finally, make sure the updated form becomes part of your standard onboarding process for new hires.

If you use an HRIS or digital onboarding system, this is usually a quick adjustment.

Why Small Compliance Details Matter

In our experience, the compliance problems that cause the most frustration are rarely the complicated ones. They are the small procedural requirements that are easy to overlook.

A missed form. An outdated onboarding document. A process that was never updated after a change in the law.

None of these issues seem significant on their own, but they can create unnecessary exposure if regulators, or plaintiffs’ attorneys, start reviewing your workplace practices.

The Bottom Line

If you have not already updated your emergency contact process, now is the time.

Before March 30, 2026, make sure you give employees the opportunity to designate an emergency contact and indicate whether that person should be notified if you have actual knowledge the employee has been arrested or detained during work hours.

The post Don’t Forget the March 30 Emergency Contact Deadline first appeared on Shaw Law Group.