What's New in Employment Law?

One of the most difficult questions California employers face is whether an employee’s troubling behavior should be treated as misconduct or as a possible sign of a disability.

Respond too quickly with discipline, and an employer may overlook its obligations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Wait too long to address serious misconduct, and the employer risks disrupting the workplace, compromising safety, and undermining accountability.

A recent California Court of Appeal decision illustrates just how difficult this balance can be and offers several important lessons for California employers.

The Case Was Not Really About Misconduct

At first glance, the case appeared to center on an employee’s behavior. But the court’s analysis focused on a different question: What did the employer know, and when did it know it?

Under the FEHA, an employer’s obligation to engage in the interactive process generally arises when it knows—or reasonably should know—that an employee may have a disability requiring accommodation.

That does not mean every difficult employee has a disability.

Nor does it mean every unusual behavior requires an accommodation.

Instead, the employer must evaluate the information available at the time and determine whether there are sufficient facts to suggest a medical or mental health condition may be affecting the employee’s conduct.

Notice Does Not Always Come from a Doctor

Many employers assume they have no accommodation obligations until an employee presents medical documentation or specifically requests an accommodation. But California law is not that simple.

Notice may arise from many different sources, including:

• Statements made by the employee
• Information provided by family members
• Prior medical disclosures
• Observable changes in behavior
• Workplace conversations that reasonably suggest a medical condition may be involved

The court’s decision serves as a reminder that employers should not focus solely on whether the employee used the words “reasonable accommodation.”

The real question is whether the employer had enough information to recognize that further inquiry might be appropriate.

Misconduct Can Still Be Misconduct

One point that is often misunderstood is that the FEHA does not require employers to excuse workplace misconduct simply because a disability may exist.

Employees remain responsible for complying with legitimate workplace rules, performing the essential functions of their jobs, and maintaining appropriate workplace conduct.

If an employee violates workplace policies, discipline may still be appropriate.

The mistake employers sometimes make is assuming that misconduct automatically ends the disability analysis. But that’s not correct.

When the circumstances suggest the behavior may be connected to a disability, employers should consider whether additional inquiry or the interactive process is warranted before making a final employment decision.

The Interactive Process is Not Automatic

The court did not suggest that employers must initiate the interactive process every time an employee behaves poorly.

Instead, employers should evaluate the facts objectively.

Questions worth asking include:

• Is this behavior new or out of character?
• Has the employee disclosed a medical condition in the past?
• Has the employee—or someone acting on the employee’s behalf—raised health concerns?
• Is there information suggesting the behavior may have a medical explanation?
• Have we gathered enough information before making a significant employment decision?

The answers will differ in every case, which is why individualized assessment remains one of the FEHA’s central principles.

Documentation Often Determines the Outcome

Cases involving behavioral issues frequently turn on documentation.

Employers should document objective observations rather than conclusions.

For example, instead of writing that an employee was “unstable,” document the specific conduct that occurred, when it occurred, who observed it, and how it affected the workplace.

Similarly, document conversations with the employee, information received about possible medical issues, the steps taken to evaluate the situation, and the reasons supporting the ultimate decision.

Objective documentation demonstrates thoughtful decision-making and often becomes critical evidence if litigation follows.

Train Supervisors to Recognize When to Pause

Supervisors are usually the first people to observe changes in employee behavior.

They are not expected to diagnose medical conditions—and they should never attempt to do so.

Their responsibility is much simpler: Recognize when unusual circumstances may require HR involvement before significant disciplinary action is taken.

A supervisor who immediately contacts HR after observing concerning behavior may prevent an expensive legal dispute months or years later.

Bottom Line

The recent decision reinforces an important principle: employers do not have to choose between enforcing workplace standards and complying with disability accommodation laws. They must do both.

The key is recognizing when employee misconduct may also raise questions about a potential disability and taking the time to evaluate those questions before making significant employment decisions.

For California employers, the safest approach is neither to assume every behavioral problem is a disability nor to dismiss the possibility too quickly. A careful, individualized analysis remains the best way to reduce legal risk while maintaining a safe, productive, and accountable workplace.

Want to Learn More?

Managing leaves of absence and reasonable accommodations is one of the most challenging areas of employment law, especially as legal requirements continue to evolve. If you’d like a deeper dive into advanced leave management strategies, join us for our Effectively Managing Leaves of Absence and Reasonable Accommodations: Intensive Workshop (Advanced Topics). This interactive two-day program covers complex real-world scenarios, recent legal developments, and practical tools to help HR professionals and managers navigate even the most difficult situations.

Learn more and register here: Effectively Managing Leaves of Absence and Reasonable Accommodations: Intensive Workshop (Advanced Topics).

The post When Employee Misconduct Becomes a Disability Issue: Lessons from a Recent California Court of Appeal Decision first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Many California employers devoted significant time and resources to complying with California’s workplace violence prevention law before it took effect on July 1, 2024, through SB 553. They drafted Workplace Violence Prevention Plans, trained employees, implemented reporting procedures, and created violent incident logs.

For many organizations, however, compliance effectively ended there.

That is understandable. Developing the initial program required a substantial investment of time and effort. But the law was never intended to be a one-time compliance exercise. A Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (WVPP) is designed to be a living document that evolves as workplaces, operations, and risks change. With Cal/OSHA expected to issue long-awaited workplace violence prevention regulations early this fall, employers should not wait for the regulations to begin evaluating their programs. Now is an ideal time to identify gaps, refresh training, and ensure that your plan reflects your current workplace before the next phase of compliance arrives.

Having a Plan is Only the Beginning

One of the biggest misconceptions is that SB 553 compliance begins and ends with having a written plan. In reality, the written plan is only one component of a much broader obligation.

If Cal/OSHA conducts an inspection following a complaint or workplace incident, the agency is unlikely to stop after reviewing the employer’s written plan. Investigators will want to know whether employees received the required training, whether workplace violence concerns were reported and investigated, whether identified hazards were corrected, and whether supervisors understand their responsibilities under the program. In other words, employers should expect Cal/OSHA to evaluate whether the plan is actually being implemented, not simply whether it exists.

Programs Naturally Drift Over Time

Nearly every workplace changes over the course of a year. Supervisors leave, new employees are hired, facilities are remodeled, job duties evolve, and business operations expand. As those changes occur, WVPPs often become outdated without anyone realizing it.
Common issues include stale training, out-of-date hazard assessments, overly complicated reporting procedures, and violent incident logs that no one has reviewed since the program was first implemented. None of these issues necessarily reflect a lack of commitment to workplace safety. More often, they simply demonstrate how quickly an organization’s day-to-day operations can outgrow its written procedures.

Take Another Look at Your Hazard Assessment

Perhaps the most valuable part of any WVPP is the hazard assessment. It is also one of the sections most likely to become outdated.
Employers periodically should consider whether anything has changed since they first completed the assessment. New locations, changes in staffing, increased interaction with the public, remote or hybrid work arrangements, new security concerns, or even a single workplace incident may justify revisiting the assessment. The goal is not simply to update paperwork but to ensure that the preventive measures still match the realities of the workplace.

Supervisors Make or Break the Program

Even the most carefully drafted WVPP cannot succeed if supervisors are uncertain about how to respond when concerns arise.
Supervisors are often the first to observe troubling behavior or receive reports from employees. They should understand how to recognize potential warning signs, document concerns appropriately, respond to employee reports, and involve Human Resources before a situation escalates. Regular refresher training can be just as important as the initial training employees received when the law first became effective.

Now is the Right Time for a Mid-Year Review

Many employers think about workplace violence prevention only when an inspection occurs or after a serious incident. By then, opportunities to strengthen the program may have already been missed.
This year’s review is particularly important because employers should soon receive additional guidance from Cal/OSHA. Although the anticipated regulations are expected to clarify and expand upon existing requirements, employers that regularly review and update their programs will be in a much better position to adapt than those whose plans have remained unchanged since they were first adopted.

The Bottom Line

California’s workplace violence prevention law was never intended to produce a binder that sits on a shelf. Employers that treat their program as an ongoing process—not a one-time compliance project—will be better prepared for the anticipated Cal/OSHA regulations, reduce legal risk, and create a safer workplace.
The most effective WVPPs are not simply well written—they are actively used, regularly updated, and consistently followed.

The post Is Your Workplace Violence Prevention Plan Ready for Cal/OSHA’s Next Move? first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

As we celebrate America’s 250th birthday this week, it’s hard not to think about how much has changed over the past two and a half centuries. The workplace certainly has.

The nation’s founders could never have imagined artificial intelligence, remote work, workplace violence prevention plans, pay transparency laws, social media investigations, or California’s ever-growing list of employment regulations. Today’s employers are navigating workplace issues that didn’t exist even a decade ago.

Yet the more employment law changes, the more I am reminded that the fundamentals of good leadership really don’t.

The employers who stay out of court are rarely those with the thickest employee handbook or the most complicated policies. Instead, they set clear expectations, communicate honestly, treat employees consistently, address problems early, document important decisions, and make fairness part of their workplace culture. These principles never go out of style.

That’s especially true in California, where employment law seems to change almost every legislative session. New statutes, court decisions, agency guidance, and local ordinances require employers to constantly update their policies and practices. Compliance is no longer something you check off once a year. It’s an ongoing process.

But compliance alone isn’t enough.

The best employers don’t just react to new laws. They anticipate change. They train their leaders before problems arise. They regularly review their policies, ask whether their practices still make sense, and look for opportunities to improve before a government agency, or a plaintiff’s attorney, points out the issue for them.

Over the past 250 years, our country has continually adapted as society has changed. Employment law has followed that same path. We’ve expanded workplace protections, addressed new technologies, responded to changing expectations, and developed new ways to balance the interests of employers and employees. That process isn’t over. It never will be.

The legal issues employers face 10 years from now will almost certainly look different from the ones we face today. New technologies will emerge. Workforce expectations will continue to evolve. Legislatures and courts will continue to respond.

The employers who will be most successful won’t necessarily be the ones who can predict every legal change. They’ll be the ones who have built workplaces grounded in fairness, consistency, accountability, and respect, principles that remain just as relevant today as they were generations ago.

As you celebrate Independence Day with family and friends, I hope you’ll also take a moment to appreciate the people who make your organization successful every day. Strong workplaces, like strong communities, don’t happen by accident. They are built through thoughtful leadership, shared responsibility, and a commitment to doing the right thing.

The Bottom Line

Employment law will continue to evolve, especially in California. But employers who focus on good leadership, fair treatment, consistent practices, and proactive compliance will always be better positioned to navigate whatever comes next.

The post America at 250: The Workplace Has Changed. Good Leadership Hasn’t. first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

A recent episode of Dateline NBC, “Breaking Point,” tells the heartbreaking story of Morgan Fox, a 29-year-old FedEx employee and mother who was murdered outside her home in 2020. Although the episode focuses on the criminal prosecution of her coworker, the facts reported in the case offer an important reminder for employers: workplace complaints are not simply HR issues. They can be significant risk indicators.

According to publicly reported information, concerns had been raised about the perpetrator’s workplace behavior before the tragedy occurred. Multiple complaints reportedly involved allegations of harassment and inappropriate conduct. Fox even reportedly communicated concerns to Human Resources, including expressing that she felt targeted and unsafe.

The reported facts raise difficult questions that many employers face every day:

• When does a conduct issue become a safety concern?
• How should repeated complaints be escalated?
• What warning signs should trigger additional intervention?
• How can employers ensure concerns do not fall through organizational cracks?

Following the incident, Fox’s family filed claims against FedEx alleging failures in the handling of workplace complaints and reports of harassment. Public reports indicate the matter was ultimately resolved through a $4 million settlement.

Although employers are not responsible for preventing every criminal act committed by an employee, they can face significant liability when warning signs are overlooked or complaints are not appropriately addressed. Claims involving negligent retention, negligent supervision, and failure to respond to known workplace concerns often focus on what the employer knew, or should have known, and what actions were taken in response.

This case highlights an important reality: effective performance management is not just about productivity or accountability. It also is a critical component of workplace safety and risk management.

Strong organizations create systems that:

• Encourage employees to report concerns;
• Promptly investigate complaints;
• Document findings and corrective actions;
• Follow up on recurring issues; and
• Escalate situations that present potential safety risks.

The most effective risk prevention strategies often begin long before a crisis occurs. Early intervention, consistent documentation, and thoughtful management responses can help address concerns before they escalate into larger legal, operational, or safety issues.

Don’t Wait for a Breaking Point

Many employers struggle with when and how to address troubling employee behavior, document concerns, conduct investigations, and determine when escalation is necessary. Those challenges are exactly why managers and HR professionals need practical, legally compliant performance management tools.

The Morgan Fox case serves as a sobering reminder that performance management is not merely an administrative exercise. It is one of the most important tools employers have to identify risks, address concerns early, and foster a safer, more accountable workplace.

Join Me on June 24

If your leaders are uncomfortable addressing performance concerns, documenting misconduct, or escalating workplace issues, now is the time to strengthen those skills.

On June 24, 2026, Shaw Law Group will present Performance Management with a Modern Spin, a practical webinar designed to help employers move beyond outdated annual reviews and implement effective strategies for managing performance and employee relations in today’s workplace.

Participants will learn how to:

• Address performance and conduct issues before they become larger problems;
• Have difficult conversations with confidence;
• Document concerns effectively;
• Improve accountability and employee engagement;
• Reduce legal exposure through proactive management practices; and
• Build a workplace culture focused on growth, communication, and success.

Register here.

Sometimes the most important employment law lessons come from situations we wish had never happened. The Morgan Fox case is a powerful reminder that employee relations, complaint handling, and performance management are not separate functions. They are essential components of workplace safety, risk prevention, and effective leadership.

The post Performance Management: Lessons from a Tragic Workplace Case first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Let’s be honest—nobody wakes up excited to attend a Wage & Hour training.

We get it. Meal periods, rest breaks, overtime calculations, off-the-clock work, wage statements… it’s not exactly thrilling.

But here’s the reality: a few hours of training today can save your organization hundreds of thousands of dollars tomorrow.

Just last week, one of Sacramento’s Japanese restaurants agreed to pay $700,000 to settle a wage and hour lawsuit alleging unpaid overtime, off-the-clock work, and missed meal and rest breaks. According to court filings, the lawsuit claimed employees were required to work through breaks and perform work without compensation.

The hard truth? Most wage and hour claims are preventable.

Employers don’t intentionally violate the law. They rely on supervisors who haven’t been trained, outdated practices, or payroll procedures that haven’t kept up with California’s ever-changing requirements. Then a single employee complaint turns into a class action or PAGA claim.

You can pay to train your HR team and managers now—or pay attorneys, settlement administrators, and plaintiffs’ counsel later.

Join us for The Million-Dollar Violation: Wage & Hour Compliance 101 and learn the practical steps employers can take to avoid costly mistakes before they become expensive lawsuits.

Invest a few hours in compliance. It beats writing a six-figure settlement check.

Register today: The Million-Dollar Violation: Wage & Hour Compliance 101

The post Could Your Organization Survive a $700,000 Wage Claim? first appeared on Shaw Law Group.