What's New in Employment Law?

Labor Day Is About People

We spend a lot of time talking about work as though it is separate from the rest of life. It isn’t. People come to work carrying everything with them: grief, fear, divorce, sick parents, sick children, financial stress, new babies, bad news, good news, exhaustion, ambition, pride, disappointment, and hope. Most of the time, the people around them know very little about any of it.

That is what I have been thinking about this Labor Day. I have spent my career advising employers about the workplace. I think about compliance, risk, investigations, policies, performance, accommodations, terminations, and all of the complicated decisions that come with employing people. But the longer I do this work, the more I believe the best workplaces are not defined only by how well they follow the law. They are defined by how they treat people when things are hard.

People Remember How You Show Up

Over the last few weeks, I have been reminded of that in a very personal way. When my daughter and I lost Weston unexpectedly, people showed up for us. They called, texted, checked in, remembered stories, and said his name. They understood that he was not “just a horse.” He was part of our family, part of my daughter’s life, and part of a future she thought she had.
Nothing anyone said could fix it. But kindness mattered. Presence mattered. And it made me think about how often the same thing is true at work.

A leader may not be able to fix what an employee is going through. An employer may not be able to say yes to every request. Sometimes performance must be addressed. Sometimes a job has to end. Sometimes the answer is “no.” But there is always a choice about how those moments are handled, and people remember that choice.

The Law Rarely Is the Whole Story

By the time an employment problem reaches a lawyer, we tend to focus on the legal questions. Was the leave protected? Was the accommodation reasonable? Was the investigation adequate? Was the termination justified? Those questions matter, of course.

But after decades of doing this work, I can tell you that many workplace disputes begin long before anyone starts talking about statutes or lawsuits. They begin when someone feels dismissed, when no one listens, when a difficult conversation is handled carelessly, or when an employee is reduced to a “problem.” They begin when a leader becomes so focused on being right that they forget there is another human being sitting across the table.

Sometimes the employer has done nothing legally wrong, and the situation still goes terribly wrong.

Kindness Does Not Mean Weakness

I think some employers are afraid of kindness. They worry that empathy means giving in, that compassion makes accountability harder, or that listening creates expectations they cannot meet. It doesn’t. You can be kind and still hold someone accountable. You can listen and still say no. You can recognize that someone is struggling and still require them to do their job. You can make a difficult business decision and still deliver it with dignity. Those things are not opposites. In fact, the strongest leaders I know are very good at both. They are clear. They are direct. They make hard decisions. And they never forget that their decisions affect actual people.

Work Is More Human Than We Pretend It Is

Employment law can make the workplace sound clinical. We talk about human resources, headcount, performance management, reductions in force, and the interactive process. We use phrases that make deeply personal moments sound almost sterile.

But work is not sterile. It is where people spend an enormous portion of their lives. It is where they succeed and fail, form friendships, discover what they are good at, and sometimes feel valued or invisible. A promotion can change a family’s life. A bad supervisor can make someone dread Monday morning. A termination conversation can stay with a person for years. A few thoughtful words from a leader can too.

That is why how we treat people at work matters so much.

What Labor Day Means to Me This Year

Labor Day is supposed to recognize the contributions of working people. This year, I find myself thinking less about “labor” as an abstract idea and more about the individual people doing it: the employee who showed up after a sleepless night, the leader carrying a burden no one else can see, the coworker who noticed someone was struggling and quietly helped, and the person who is doing their best during a season of life that is asking too much of them.

I also think about the people whose names may never appear in a company announcement, but whose work keeps everything moving. We owe them more than compliance. We owe them fairness, honesty, dignity, and sometimes a little grace.

Because work matters. But people matter more.

And if there is one thing I hope we remember this Labor Day, it is this: people may forget the policy, the meeting, or even the decision itself. They will not forget how they were treated when it mattered most.

The post Work matters. But people matter more. first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Last week, my daughter lost her horse, Weston, without any notice. I have rewritten that sentence about 10 times because there really isn’t a way to capture what happened. Weston wasn’t just a horse E. rode. He was her partner.

They had been together for six years. They trained together, traveled together, competed together, and won together. They were two-time champions at the Pinto Worlds in Tulsa. But the championships aren’t the point. They knew each other. They trusted each other. They had that kind of relationship you sometimes see between a rider and a horse where it becomes hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. E. loved him completely, and suddenly he was gone.

As her mother, there was very little I could do about the one thing that actually mattered. I couldn’t fix it or make her feel better, and I certainly couldn’t give her Weston back. So, I did what most of us do when something terrible happens: I tried to deal with everything else. And, of course, everything else was still there. There were client emails, meetings, deadlines, and people who needed answers from me. Life does not clear your calendar when something awful happens.

What struck me over the last week was how many people simply understood. Clients were patient when I was slower to respond. People moved meetings. Colleagues took things off my plate without making me explain every detail first. Friends checked on E., and people from the horse world who understood exactly what Weston meant to her reached out. There were so many messages that essentially said the same thing: “Don’t worry about us. Take care of E.” Nobody asked me to justify why the death of a horse had turned our lives upside down or suggested that, because Weston was an animal, this loss should somehow be easier. They just understood E. was grieving, and I was incredibly grateful for that.

It also made me think about the workplace in a way I probably wouldn’t have a week ago. We spend a lot of time advising employers about rules. How much leave is someone entitled to? What does the policy say? Does the law require an accommodation? Can we make an exception? Those are legitimate questions, and they are questions I answer for a living.

But sometimes there is another question worth asking first: What does this person need from us right now?

Not every difficult moment has a statutory leave attached to it, and not every family crisis fits neatly into a policy. What feels devastating to one person may not seem nearly as significant to someone else, but I’m not sure that should matter as much as we sometimes think it does. A parent dies. A marriage ends. A child is struggling. Someone gets frightening medical news. An elderly parent suddenly needs care. Or a 16-year-old girl loses the horse who had been part of nearly every important moment in her life.

Sometimes people just need a little room. That doesn’t mean abandoning standards, eliminating deadlines, or granting every request. It means recognizing that there are moments when being a decent human being matters more than proving that a rule could be enforced.

There is sometimes a fear in workplaces that if we give people too much grace, they will take advantage of it. Maybe sometimes they will. But my experience last week was exactly the opposite. Every person who told me not to worry about something right now made me want to get back to them faster. Every client who said, “Take care of your daughter,” made me even more appreciative of my relationship with that client. Grace doesn’t necessarily make people care less about their work. Sometimes it makes them care more.

And people remember it. They may not remember the precise language in a bereavement policy or how many days off the handbook technically allowed, but they will remember the person who said, “Go. We’ve got this.” They will remember who made a terrible week harder, and they will absolutely remember who made it a little easier.

I wish I hadn’t had a reason to think about any of this last week. I would much rather be writing about E. and Weston heading to their next show or watching the two of them walk into another arena together.

But I am deeply grateful for the people who have surrounded us since we lost him. Nothing anyone can say is going to make E. okay right now. That isn’t how grief works. But people can make a terrible time less lonely, and that matters more than I realized before last week.

We talk a lot in my world about what employers are legally required to do. Sometimes the most important thing we can do for another person has nothing to do with what the law requires. Sometimes somebody’s life falls apart in the middle of the workweek. And sometimes the kindest thing we can say is simply, “This can wait.”

The post When Life Falls Apart in the Middle of the Workweek first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

It happens all the time. An employee calls out for several days and returns with a doctor’s note. Or HR gets an email saying the employee needs to work from home, avoid lifting, change their schedule, or remain off work for another month.

At that point, the employer usually wants to know one thing: Can we approve this, deny it, or ask for more information? Unfortunately, the answer usually is not that simple.

In California, a doctor’s note often is not the end of the analysis. It’s the beginning. Here are the practical steps employers should take after receiving medical documentation.

First, Figure Out What the Employee Wants

Do not get too hung up on the form of the request.

Employees do not have to use the words “reasonable accommodation” or “interactive process” to trigger an employer’s obligations. A note that says “off work until September 15,” “no lifting over 20 pounds,” or “must work from home” may be enough to put the employer on notice that the employee needs some kind of workplace change because of a medical condition.

The first question should be: What does this employee need to work, return to work, or remain employed? If the answer is not clear, ask.

Do Not Turn HR Into a Medical Investigator

Employers understandably want enough information to make a sound decision. But that does not mean HR is entitled to the employee’s diagnosis, complete medical history, or medical records.

Usually, what you need to know is much narrower: What are the employee’s restrictions? How long are they expected to last? What job duties are affected? What accommodation is being requested?

That is the information that helps you make a decision. Knowing the name of the employee’s medical condition does not.

A Doctor’s Recommendation is Not Automatically the Answer

This is another common mistake.

A doctor may write, “Employee must work remotely,” “Employee should not work more than six hours per day,” or “Employee cannot perform customer-facing duties.”

That does not automatically mean your employer must accept the doctor’s proposed solution exactly as written.

The employer still has to look at the employee’s limitations, the essential functions of the job, and whether there are other effective accommodations.

For example, if the note says the employee must work from home, HR should understand why. What limitation does remote work address? Does the job actually require the employee to be onsite? Could another accommodation solve the same problem?

The goal is not simply to approve or reject the doctor’s suggestion. You need to determine whether there is an effective, reasonable accommodation.

Look at the Job the Employee Actually Performs

This sounds obvious, but it is often where the analysis goes sideways.

Before deciding whether an accommodation will work, look at the employee’s real job duties. Not just the job description that was written six years ago and hasn’t been touched since.

Which duties are essential? Which are marginal? Does the employee really need to be onsite? Does the employee really need to lift 40 pounds? Could duties be adjusted temporarily? Would changing one task actually eliminate an essential function? These questions matter.

Employers generally are not required to eliminate essential job functions. But if you want to rely on that principle, you’d better be able to explain essential functions and why they matter.

If the Note Is Vague, Do Not Guess

Medical notes frequently are unhelpful:

• “Employee cannot work in a stressful environment.”
• “Employee needs flexibility.”
• “Employee should avoid prolonged standing.”

These statements do not give the employer enough information to evaluate the request. But an unclear note does not necessarily justify an immediate denial. Ask for clarification.

What does “flexibility” mean? What is the employee unable to do? How often does the restriction arise? How long is it expected to last? What accommodation would allow the employee to perform the job?

You don’t have to guess, and you shouldn’t.  Ask the follow-up questions and get the answers you need.

Keep Talking When Things Change

The interactive process is not a one-time event.

An employee may need a temporary accommodation and then request an extension. A restriction may become permanent. An accommodation that worked well for six months may suddenly stop working.

When the circumstances change, the conversation may need to start again. That is especially important with leave requests. An employee who initially needs four weeks off may later request additional time. Employers should evaluate the new information rather than assuming the original decision settles the issue forever.

Document How You Got There

Employers often document the final answer but not the process that led to it. That is risky.

The file should show when HR first learned about the issue, what information was requested, what the employee provided, what accommodations were considered, and why the employer ultimately approved or rejected a particular option.

Months later, the question is rarely just, “What did we decide?” It is usually, “Why did we decide it?” Good documentation answers both.

The Bottom Line

When a doctor’s note arrives, do not rush to stamp it “approved” or “denied.”

Figure out what the employee is asking for. Focus on restrictions, not diagnoses. Look at the actual job. Ask follow-up questions when the information is unclear. Consider alternatives. And document the process.

The best accommodation decisions do not come from a form or a doctor’s note standing alone. You must engage in a dialogue and thoughtful review of the facts.

Want more information about this important topic?

• Check out EmployersLawyer’s upcoming September 9 webinar, Accommodation Requests Done Right: Avoiding Costly Mistakes in California. Details here: Upcoming Webinars | EmployersLawyer 
• And don’t miss Shaw Law Group’s Effectively Managing Leaves of Absence and Reasonable Accommodations: Intensive Workshop (Advanced Topics) on September 22 and September 29. Space is limited, so register before it’s too late! LOA/RA Advanced Topics

The post The Doctor’s Note Just Landed in HR’s Inbox. Now What? first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

If you work for a larger employer that has spent years preparing the annual EEO-1 Report, the latest development out of Washington may sound like welcome news.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has proposed rescinding the EEO-1 and related reporting requirements, with public comments on the proposal due August 24, 2026. If finalized, the rule would mark a major change to a reporting system that has been part of federal equal employment opportunity compliance for decades.

It is easy to understand the employer reaction: One less report? Great.

But not so fast.

A reduced filing burden would be meaningful. But employers should not confuse the elimination of the reporting requirement with the need to understand their own workforce data.

Those are very different exercises—with very different consequences.

What is the EEOC’s Proposal?

The EEO-1 Report currently requires covered private employers to submit workforce demographic information by job category, race/ethnicity, and sex.

The EEOC’s proposed rule would eliminate that requirement, along with several related EEO reporting obligations. The agency has questioned the reports’ usefulness, burden, and potential misuse.

For employers, the practical question is not only whether the report disappears. It is what employers should continue doing with the information they already collect.

That question is especially important because the proposal does not eliminate anti-discrimination laws. Federal agencies may change their reporting priorities, but employers remain responsible for making lawful, defensible employment decisions.

No Report Does Not Mean No Risk

If the EEO-1 requirement goes away, employers may be tempted to stop looking closely at demographic patterns in hiring, promotions, compensation, discipline, terminations, and other employment decisions.

That would be a mistake.

Workforce data can help employers spot potential issues before they become claims, complaints, or litigation exhibits.

For example, an employer may discover that employees in one protected group are promoted at a significantly lower rate than similarly situated employees.

The numbers do not prove discrimination; there may be legitimate explanations.

But they may show where the employer should ask better questions.

How are promotion decisions made? Are managers applying consistent criteria? Are opportunities communicated fairly? Does documentation support the decisions? Are seemingly neutral practices producing results that deserve a closer look?

Do Not “Fix the Numbers” by Creating a New Problem

There is also an important caution: demographic data should be used to evaluate practices, not to make decisions based on protected characteristics.

A statistical disparity is a reason to investigate the process, not manipulate the outcome.

If hiring data reveals a significant demographic imbalance, the appropriate response may be to examine recruiting sources, job qualifications, interview practices, selection criteria, and decision-maker training.

The response should not be: We need to hire someone of a particular race or sex to fix the numbers.

That distinction matters, especially in the current enforcement environment.

Employers need processes that support equal employment opportunity without turning protected characteristics into selection criteria.

Why Workforce Data Still Belongs in the Compliance Toolkit

Even without a federal filing requirement, workforce data can still help employers answer questions that matter:

• Are policies being applied consistently?

• Are similarly situated employees being treated similarly?

• Do managers need clearer standards, better documentation practices, or additional training?

Those are questions employers would rather ask internally and early—not for the first time after a charge has been filed or litigation has begun.

Of course, employers should be thoughtful about how internal analyses are conducted, who performs them, what questions are asked, how results are documented, and whether employment counsel should be involved.

A spreadsheet titled “discrimination problems” is probably not the compliance strategy anyone wants to defend.

What Employers Should Do Now

Employers do not need to overhaul their compliance programs overnight. The rulemaking process is still underway, and the proposal is not final.

But this is a good time to revisit the purpose, scope, and safeguards around workforce analytics. Start with these questions:

• What workforce information are we collecting?

• Why are we collecting it?

• Who can access it?

• Are we reviewing hiring, promotion, compensation, discipline, and termination practices for unexplained disparities?

• If we identify a disparity, do we have a disciplined process for evaluating the underlying practices?

• Are managers using objective, job-related criteria?

• Are we documenting decisions consistently?

• Should certain analyses be conducted with employment counsel?

The goal is not to achieve predetermined demographic outcomes.

The goal is to make lawful, defensible employment decisions—and identify potential problems before they become bigger ones.

The Bottom Line

Employers may eventually be able to say goodbye to the EEO-1 Report. But you should not say goodbye to understanding your workforce. Government reporting requirements come and go. The obligation to make employment decisions without unlawful discrimination remains.

The post The EEO-1 Report May Be Going Away, But Your Workforce Data Still Matters first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Flexible work arrangements are here to stay, and many California employers are looking for ways to give employees more control over their schedules. One common request? “Can I work from home for part of the day so I can avoid rush-hour traffic?”

Seems simple enough. But for employers with non-exempt employees, that request raises an important wage and hour question: If an employee starts the workday at home and then drives to the office, is that midday commute now paid time?

According to a recent U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) opinion letter, the answer is “not necessarily.”

The good news? Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a midday commute may remain unpaid. The catch? The employee—not the employer—has to be driving the arrangement.

For California employers, however, there’s an even bigger catch: the DOL interprets federal law, not California law. California wage and hour rules are often more protective of employees, so this opinion letter is helpful guidance—but it is not the last word.

Why This Matters in California

Under the FLSA, ordinary home-to-work commuting generally is not compensable.

The concern arises because of the “continuous workday” doctrine. Once an employee begins performing principal work activities, time between the first and last principal activity of the day may become compensable.

That’s why many employers have hesitated to approve split-day schedules for non-exempt employees. If someone works from home for two hours and then drives to the office, has the workday already started?

The DOL says that, under the facts presented, the answer is “no.”

California employers, however, should remember that California courts and the Labor Commissioner often take a broader view of what constitutes “hours worked,” particularly where the employer exercises control over an employee’s time.

The Facts Made All the Difference

The opinion letter considered three different situations.

One employee wanted to work from home in the morning, drive to the office after traffic eased, and leave before the evening commute.

Another wanted to complete additional project work from home before the regular workday instead of coming into the office early.

A third employee who relied on public transportation wanted to finish work from home after leaving the office so he wouldn’t miss the last bus.

Different facts. Same conclusion.

In every situation:

• The employee requested the arrangement.
• The employee decided when to commute.
• The employee performed no work during the drive.
• The employer did not direct or control the timing of the travel.

Those facts were critical to the DOL’s conclusion that the travel remained an ordinary commute.

The Real Lesson Isn’t About the Commute

The biggest takeaway isn’t about driving. It’s about who controls the schedule.

The DOL repeatedly emphasized that these arrangements worked because the employees initiated them. The employer wasn’t directing employees to split the workday, wasn’t deciding when they should travel, and wasn’t assigning work during the commute.

In other words, the commute stayed an ordinary commute because the employee chose it.

For California employers, that distinction is especially important. California wage and hour law frequently turns on employer control. The more the employer dictates when, where, or how work is performed, the greater the risk that travel time could be viewed as compensable.

If a supervisor says, “I’d like you to work from home this morning and come into the office around 11,” you’ve moved away from an employee-driven arrangement and closer to employer-directed travel. That creates a different—and potentially more risky—analysis under California law.

“Off Duty” Needs to Mean Off Duty

The opinion letter also depended on employees being completely relieved of duty during the commute.

That means:

• No conference calls.
• No responding to emails.
• No Teams or Slack messages.
• No expectation that the employee is available if something comes up.

In California, employers should be particularly careful about this point. Even seemingly minor work performed during a commute can create compensable time and may trigger other wage and hour obligations, including overtime, meal period, or rest break issues depending on the circumstances.

Policies are important, but manager behavior matters even more. A handbook that says employees are off duty during the commute won’t help if supervisors routinely text employees while they’re driving.

Practical Takeaways for California Employers

This opinion letter offers helpful insight, but California employers should treat it as guidance, not a green light.

If you’re considering allowing split-day schedules for non-exempt employees:

• Require employees to request the arrangement voluntarily.
• Document that the employee, not management, initiated the schedule.
• Make clear that employees are completely relieved of duty during the commute.
• Train supervisors not to call, text, email, or otherwise assign work during travel.
• Evaluate each arrangement under both federal and California law before implementing it as a standard practice.
• Review your telework and flexible scheduling policies to ensure they don’t unintentionally create employer-directed travel.

Bottom Line

The DOL’s opinion letter is encouraging for employers looking to offer more flexibility, but California employers shouldn’t assume the analysis ends there.

The federal takeaway is straightforward: an employee-requested midday commute may remain unpaid if the employee controls the arrangement and is genuinely off duty during the drive.

In California, however, the question often is whether the employer exercised control over the employee’s time. That means the same facts that persuaded the DOL may not always resolve the issue under California law.

Before rolling out a split-day telework policy for non-exempt employees, make sure the arrangement is carefully structured and evaluated under California’s wage and hour standards, not just the FLSA. As is so often the case in California employment law, the details make all the difference.

The post The DOL Says a Midday Commute Can Still Be Unpaid—But California Employers Should Read the Fine Print first appeared on Shaw Law Group.