What's New in Employment Law?

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 A rigid or outdated interpretation can quickly turn into a legal problem.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.

      

Five employee complaints triggered an investigation by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) that ultimately resulted in more than $215,000 in wage liability—an outcome that illustrates why employers should periodically conduct wage-and-hour self-audits.

Many employers assume that if payroll is running smoothly and employees are being paid on time, their wage-and-hour practices must be compliant. Unfortunately, wage-and-hour laws are highly technical, and even well-intentioned employers can get them wrong.

We recently heard from a prospective client who learned this lesson the hard way. What began as complaints from a few employees quickly turned into an extensive investigation that expanded far beyond the original complaint. Situations like this illustrate why conducting a periodic wage-and-hour self-audit can be one of the most effective ways to identify compliance issues before regulators do.

When a Small Complaint Becomes a Big Problem

The employer contacted us after employees filed complaints with the DLSE alleging failure to properly calculate their overtime. The employer believed the claims were incorrect and pointed to extensive payroll records, documentation, and supporting materials showing how employees were paid and how benefits were administered. From their perspective, everything appeared to be in order. What they did not anticipate, however, was how broadly the investigation would expand once the agency began reviewing their pay practices.

The Investigation

After reviewing the company’s payroll and benefit practices, the DLSE concluded that the employer had miscalculated the regular rate of pay and ordered the employer to pay more than $215,000 in back wages and penalties. What surprised the employer most was not the amount of liability but the scope of the investigation.

Although only five employees had filed complaints, the DLSE did not limit its review to those individuals. Instead, investigators evaluated the employer’s pay practices across the organization and applied the correction to all 43 employees. From the agency’s perspective, if a practice is incorrect for some employees, it may be incorrect for everyone.

Why Wage-and-Hour Investigations Expand

Wage-and-hour investigations rarely remain limited to the original complaint. When agencies such as the DLSE receive a complaint, investigators often examine the employer’s broader payroll practices to determine whether the issue reflects a systemic compliance problem. If the practice appears to affect multiple employees or suggests a consistent payroll error, investigators may expand their analysis across the entire workforce. As a result, a complaint involving only a handful of employees can quickly evolve into company-wide liability.

Good Intentions Do Not Guarantee Compliance

Many employers assume they are compliant because their payroll systems are organized, time records are maintained, and managers believe they are following the rules. Unfortunately, wage-and-hour laws are highly technical. Small misunderstandings about overtime calculations, the regular rate of pay, or employee classifications, though, can create significant exposure even when employers believe they are acting in good faith. Documentation alone does not demonstrate that a pay practice complies with the law if the underlying calculation or classification is incorrect.

The Best Prevention Tool: Wage-and-Hour Self-Audits

One of the most effective ways to reduce wage-and-hour risk is to conduct periodic wage-and-hour self-audits. A well-structured audit allows employers to review payroll practices with a compliance lens, identify potential issues early, and correct problems before they become systemic.

Employers conducting an initial internal wage-and-hour self-audit should start with several key questions designed to identify potential compliance gaps:

• Are all exempt employees properly classified under the applicable legal tests?
• Are bonuses, incentives, or other compensation correctly included in overtime calculations when required?
• Do timekeeping practices prevent off-the-clock work?
• Are meal and rest break policies actually being followed in practice—not just written in the handbook?
• If a government investigator reviewed payroll records today, would the documentation clearly demonstrate compliance?

Employers who identify and correct issues early through a wage-and-hour self-audit can significantly reduce risk and avoid the far greater costs associated with investigations, penalties, and litigation.

The Takeaway for Employers

A single employee complaint can open the door to a much broader investigation. Regular training, periodic wage-and-hour self-audits, and proactive review of payroll practices remain among the most effective ways to reduce risk and protect an organization. In most cases, the cost of prevention is far less than the cost of enforcement.

Upcoming SLG Training

Feeling a little uneasy about your wage-and-hour compliance? We are hosting an interactive webinar, Wage-Hour Audits: Take Action Before It’s Too Late on April 29, 2026, which will focus on the payroll practices that most often trigger legal claims. The session will highlight common wage-and-hour mistakes and provide practical guidance on how organizations can evaluate their own pay practices through internal audits. Register here.

The post Five Employee Complaints Led to $215,000 in Wage Liability: Why Employers Should Conduct Self-Audits first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Military leave protections are among the strongest employee protections in employment law. Yet many employers still misunderstand how the rules work—especially when federal protections under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) intersect with California law.

A recent lawsuit filed against a California public employer illustrates how quickly military leave issues can escalate into litigation when these rules are not handled carefully.

Military Leave Protections Are Broad—and Mandatory

USERRA is a federal law that protects employees who perform service in the uniformed services. It applies to virtually all employers, regardless of size, and covers a wide range of military obligations.

Protected service includes:

• Active duty
• National Guard and Reserve service
• Military training and drills
• Fitness-for-duty examinations
• Funeral honors duty

If an employee is absent from work because of qualifying military service, USERRA generally requires employers to allow the leave and protect the employee’s job rights.

Importantly, military leave is not discretionary. Employers cannot deny qualifying leave simply because it is inconvenient for business operations.

The “Escalator Principle”: Reemployment Rights After Military Service

One of the most significant features of USERRA is the employee’s right to reinstatement following military service.

Under what is commonly referred to as the “escalator principle,” employees must be returned to the position they would have held if their employment had continued uninterrupted.

Depending on the circumstances, this may mean reinstatement to:

• The same position
• A higher position the employee would have attained through normal progression
• A comparable role with equivalent pay, status, and seniority

Employers may also be required to provide training or other reasonable efforts to help returning service members requalify for their positions.

Military Service Cannot Be Used Against an Employee

USERRA also contains strong anti-discrimination protections.

Employers may not take adverse action against an employee because of:

• Past military service
• Current military obligations
• Future military commitments

This protection applies to hiring, promotions, discipline, termination, and other employment decisions.

Even subtle workplace hostility toward military obligations can create risk if military service is shown to be a motivating factor in an employment decision.

A Recent Example: The Angel Torres Lawsuit

A recent lawsuit filed in Sacramento illustrates how these issues can arise.

In Torres v. California Highway Patrol, the plaintiff—a member of the military—alleges that his employer violated USERRA after issues arose related to his military leave and employment status. As with many USERRA disputes, the case centers on whether the employee’s military obligations were improperly considered in employment decisions.

Although the case is still pending, it highlights an important point: military leave issues can quickly turn into high-stakes litigation if employers mishandle the situation.

USERRA claims are particularly risky because the law allows recovery of:

• Lost wages and benefits
• Liquidated damages for willful violations
• Attorneys’ fees and costs

California’s Additional Military Leave Protections

California law expands military-related employee protections even further.

For example, California provides military spouse leave for employees who work for employers with 25 or more employees. Eligible employees may take up to 10 days of unpaid leave when their spouse is deployed during a military conflict and returns home on leave.

California law may also provide broader protections in certain circumstances, which means employers must evaluate military leave issues under both federal and state law.

Practical Compliance Challenges

Military leave situations often create practical questions for employers, including:

• How much notice employees must provide before military leave
• How long positions must be held open during military service
• How reinstatement rights apply after extended service
• How military leave interacts with other leave laws or employer policies

These issues can become particularly complicated when employees perform intermittent service, which is common for National Guard members and reservists.

Best Practices

Employers can reduce legal risk by taking several proactive steps:

• Train HR professionals and managers on USERRA obligations
• Review leave policies to ensure they address military leave rights
• Avoid negative assumptions about employees with military obligations
• Carefully analyze reinstatement rights when service members return
• Seek legal guidance when complex military leave issues arise

The Bottom Line

Employees who serve in the military are entitled to strong workplace protections under federal and California law. When employers misunderstand or overlook those protections, the result can be costly litigation.

Understanding how military leave laws work, and responding appropriately when military obligations arise, is essential to staying compliant and avoiding unnecessary disputes.

The post Understanding Military Leave Protections first appeared on Shaw Law Group.