What's New In Employment Law?

A newly published decision from the Fourth Circuit—Hall v. Sheppard Pratt Health System, Inc.—offers timely guidance on one of the most misunderstood duties in both disability and religious accommodation law: when an employer must consider reassignment to a vacant position.

Even though the decision isn’t from California, its reasoning aligns closely with the way California courts analyze FEHA disability accommodations and the increasingly common religious accommodation requests, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy.

The takeaway for California employers is straightforward: reassignment is a last resort, not guaranteed placement, and an employee seeking disability or religious accommodation must still meet the legitimate, job-related qualifications for the position.

Here’s what happened in Hall and why it matters in California.

The Facts

Carolyn Hall worked as a behavioral specialist for Sheppard Pratt Health System. When medical restrictions prevented her from performing essential job functions, she requested reassignment. The employer reviewed vacant positions and considered her for several roles, but she did not meet the required qualifications for any of them. No other suitable vacancies existed, and the employer left Hall on leave.

Hall sued, arguing the ADA required the employer to place her in a vacant position regardless of her qualifications. The district court disagreed, and the Fourth Circuit agreed.

The Fourth Circuit’s Decision

The Court’s decision in Hall makes several key points:

1. Reassignment is not automatic placement.

The law requires employers to consider moving the employee into a vacant role, but only if the employee meets the legitimate qualifications for that job.

2. Employers may enforce neutral, job-related hiring criteria.

Education, experience, skills, certifications, and other minimum requirements can be applied as written.

3. Employers are not required to create new jobs or eliminate essential duties.

Reassignment applies only to existing, vacant positions.

4. Thorough documentation is essential.

The employer’s detailed records of vacancy reviews, qualifications, discussions, and decisions were critical to the Court’s ruling.

Why this Decision Matters in California

California’s FEHA is often more protective than the ADA, but for reassignment, California courts consistently look to federal ADA cases—including cases like Hall—to interpret an employer’s obligations. And this approach applies to both disability accommodation and religious accommodation, which increasingly include requests for schedule changes, duty changes, or role changes.

Reassignment as a Last Resort

Under the FEHA, employers must consider reassignment only after determining that no accommodation would enable the employee to remain in their current job. This standard applies to disability and religious accommodation requests alike.

Employees Must Be Qualified

California law requires employers to evaluate whether the employee meets the minimum job qualifications—education, training, required experience, certifications, and essential skills.

No Need to Create Jobs or Restructure Essential Functions

California follows the same rule as the Court did in Hall. If the employee cannot perform the essential functions of an existing vacancy, the employer is not required to modify that job.

Most FEHA Liability Lives in the Interactive Process

California courts place heavy emphasis on the employer’s process:

• identifying open roles,
• evaluating qualifications,
• explaining decisions, and
• documenting the entire analysis.

Employers who handle these steps well are in a much stronger position in litigation.

Religious Accommodation and Reassignment

After Groff, employers must demonstrate “substantial increased cost” to deny an accommodation. Even so, reassignment still requires that:

• a vacancy exists, and
• the employee meets the job’s minimum qualifications.

California employers are not required to bump employees, waive established requirements, or create modified roles to meet religious accommodation requests.

Practical Guidance for California Employers

• Maintain an accurate list of current vacancies.
• Clearly define minimum qualifications for every role.
• Apply hiring criteria consistently for all candidates.
• Document the analysis for each vacancy and why the employee does or does not meet the job’s requirements.
• Communicate openly throughout the interactive process and memorialize those discussions.

These steps significantly reduce the risk of FEHA claims, especially when the employer ultimately separates an employee whose restrictions cannot be accommodated.

Final Thoughts

Hall reinforces a principle California employers often misunderstand: neither the ADA nor FEHA guarantees reassignment. Employers must explore vacancies, evaluate qualifications, and engage in a thorough interactive process—but they are not required to place employees into roles they are not qualified to perform.

About Shaw Law Group 

At Shaw Law Group, we do more than practice employment law—we partner with employers to build compliant, respectful, and productive workplaces. From day-to-day advice and counsel to impartial workplace investigations, proactive HR audits, dynamic training programs, and sensitive pre-litigation matters, our experienced team helps clients stay ahead of the curve—and out of court.

The post Navigating Reassignment and Religious Accommodations Under California Law first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

A new Eleventh Circuit decision, Mundt v. Sheriff, Okaloosa County, reinforces several key principles under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that employers across the country—including those in California covered by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)—should revisit.

In Mundt, the Appeals Court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, rejecting an employee’s disability discrimination claim because he could not perform the essential functions of his job and did not show he was denied a reasonable accommodation.

For employers, the case is another confirmation that essential job functions, clear medical documentation, and a real interactive process remain the core of preventing disability-related claims.

What Happened?

Brandon Mundt worked for the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office in a position that required regular physical activity, direct interaction with inmates and the public, and the ability to respond quickly to emergencies. Like many public-safety roles, the essential functions of his job were tied to physical readiness, situational awareness, and the ability to perform safety-critical tasks without limitation. After experiencing medical issues, Mundt submitted restrictions that significantly affected his ability to perform several of these core duties. Over time, he provided multiple medical notes, but the information was often inconsistent or failed to clarify whether—and under what circumstances—he could safely resume the essential demands of his role.

The Sheriff’s Office engaged with Mundt to understand his limitations and evaluate whether any reasonable accommodation would allow him to continue working. The agency reviewed his medical updates, considered potential modifications, and analyzed whether light duty or reassignment were feasible options. Ultimately, the Sheriff’s Office concluded that no accommodation would allow Mundt to perform the essential functions of his job safely and consistently.

Mundt disagreed and sued, claiming that the Sheriff’s Office failed to accommodate him and discriminated against him based on disability. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff, finding that Mundt could not meet his burden, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Court emphasized that the employer acted lawfully because the law does not require employers to eliminate essential duties, create new positions, or offer indefinitely modified assignments when the employee is unable to perform the core functions of the job.

So What?

The Mundt decision reinforces several practical rules that every employer should keep top of mind.

1. Essential Job Functions are the Foundation of Every Disability Case

The Court emphasized that Mundt could not perform the essential functions of his position, even with an accommodation. That fact alone defeated his claim.

This is a critical reminder: If an employee cannot perform the essential job functions, the employer is not required to retain or accommodate them.

But this protection only works if employers maintain:

• accurate, updated job descriptions
• clear documentation of physical and operational requirements
• consistent enforcement of essential duties

For physical jobs—like in Mundt—physical abilities and safety-related duties are almost always essential.

2. Employees Must Identify a Reasonable Accommodation

The Eleventh Circuit confirmed that to prevail on a disability claim, plaintiffs must show that (1) a reasonable accommodation existed, and (2) the employer failed to provide it. Mundt could not do so.

California law requires the same showing. Employers are not required to:

• create a new position
• provide indefinite light duty
• permanently reassign essential tasks to coworkers
• accept vague or unsupported medical restrictions

The burden is on the employee to identify a feasible accommodation.

3. Medical Documentation Matters

The Court’s reasoning regarding Mundt’s medical documentation is consistent with a common theme in these cases: employees must provide medical documentation that clearly explains what they can and cannot do. It is not enough for the healthcare provider to simply dictate the accommodations the employee wants.

In addition, employers are entitled to request clarification or additional information if they do not have sufficient information to fully evaluate potential accommodations. If the employee does not provide it, the employer is not required to guess.

4. The Interactive Process Still Protects Employers Who Engage in It

The Eleventh Circuit recognized that employers who attempt to engage in the interactive process—and can show it through documentation—are strongly positioned to win disability-related cases.

In Mundt, the Sheriff’s Office:

• communicated with the employee
• reviewed his restrictions
• evaluated possible accommodations
• documented its analysis

That record allowed the Court to affirm the lower court’s dismissal of the case.

Of course, California employers are held to an even higher standard under FEHA, making documentation indispensable.

What Now?

Cases like Mundt serve as a good reminder to revisit your practices:

• Review job descriptions for accuracy and clarity, focusing on essential functions.
• Train supervisors on how to identify accommodation requests and loop in HR early.
• Standardize forms and procedures for requesting medical documentation.
• Document each step of the interactive process, including employee non-participation.
• Ensure light-duty programs are applied consistently—and not treated as permanent accommodations, and do not provide them only to employees with workers’ compensation claims.
• Evaluate leave requests and avoid open-ended, indefinite extensions without medical support.

With 2026 bringing new California FEHA and leave-law expansions, this project should be at the top of your “to do” list!

***

If you want to get more comfortable with the disability accommodation process, we’d love to have you join us for one of our in-depth Shaw Law Group workshops. Stay tuned for our upcoming classes where we will offer a great introductory session for those just getting started, and an advanced program for HR professionals who want hands-on guidance with the tougher issues. Jen Shaw leads each full-day session, breaking down the law in plain English and sharing practical tools you can use right away to navigate the interactive process—and avoid unnecessary claims. 

About Shaw Law Group 

At Shaw Law Group, we do more than practice employment law—we partner with employers to build compliant, respectful, and productive workplaces. From day-to-day advice and counsel to impartial workplace investigations, proactive HR audits, dynamic training programs, and sensitive pre-litigation matters, our experienced team helps clients stay ahead of the curve—and out of court.

The post New Eleventh Circuit ADA Decision Offers Practical Lessons for Employers first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

As we move into 2026, California employers face a series of important compliance deadlines. One that deserves timely attention is the new notice requirement imposed by Senate Bill 294 (“SB 294”), which mandates that employers distribute a new standalone “Know Your Rights” notice to all employees.

What Does the New Law Require?

Effective February 1, 2026, SB 294 requires employers to provide every employee with a separate written notice (distinct from the Labor Code section 2610.5 notice or handbook) explaining certain employee rights:

• At the time of hiring new employees, and for existing employees by March 30, 2026, the employer must offer the opportunity to name an emergency contact. The employee must also be allowed to update this information during employment.
• The notice must allow the employee to indicate whether the emergency contact should be notified if the employee is arrested or detained on the worksite, during work hours, or while performing job duties (if the employer becomes aware of that arrest/detention).
• Non‐compliance may trigger penalties (employers should review final regulatory guidance).

So What?

On its face, the new requirement seems merely to add to your administrative burden. However, it deserves your attention for several reasons:

• Compliance risk: The February 1 deadline for providing the notice means employers should begin drafting or updating their notice now rather than waiting until year-end.
• Integration with existing processes: Because the law ties to both new hires and existing employees (via March 30, 2026, for the emergency contact update), your onboarding and annual review processes will need adjustment.
• Policy alignment: The notice includes an option for the employee to authorize employer notification of their emergency contact if arrested/detained. This option raises questions about how the employer will handle and process such events, data-privacy implications, and how the policy will be communicated internally.
• Audit readiness: Given the broader legislative wave in California for 2026, including several other changes (e.g., pay transparency, wage-theft enforcement, exempt salary thresholds) this notice requirement is part of a larger compliance ecosystem. It’s an opportunity to review your entire employee-notice portfolio.
• Employee experience and employer branding: For many employers, this isn’t just a legal tick-box. It can be an opportunity to demonstrate care for employee well-being (emergency contact, clarity of rights, etc.).

Your “To Do” List

Here’s a checklist to integrate this requirement into your compliance roadmap:

1. Prepare the notice: SB 294 also added to the Labor Code section 1554, whose subdivision (a) provides:

   The Labor Commissioner shall develop a template notice that an employer may use to comply with the requirements of Section 1553. On or before January 1, 2026, the Labor Commissioner shall post the template notice on its internet website so that it is accessible to an employer. The Labor Commissioner shall post an updated template notice annually thereafter. The template notice shall be written in plain terminology that is easily understood by a worker. The Labor Commissioner shall make the template notice available in different languages, including English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Korean, Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi. The Labor Commissioner may also provide the template notice in additional languages.

   Keep your eyes out for the template notice.  We will post about it here, too!

2. Update onboarding materials: Insert the notice into your new-hire packet, and ensure HR and onboarding workflows distribute, explain, and capture acknowledgment.
3. Existing employee communication: Plan for distribution to current employees — including a mechanism for them to indicate/update emergency contact information and to check the box for “notify emergency contact if arrested/detained” (if they choose). Target completion by March 30, 2026.
4. Systems and data management: Ensure your HRIS or employee file system has a field for emergency contact, capture of the employee’s choice about notification, and ability to update during employment. Check data storage, access control, and privacy safeguards.
5. Policy documentation: Update your employee handbook and supplemental policies to reference the notice and related processes.
6. Training and communication: Consider training HR staff about how to handle this data, including how to respond if the employer becomes aware of an employee’s arrest/detention at work. Ensure consistency and sensitivity.
7. Monitor regulatory updates: Because SB 294 is part of a broader employment law update in California for 2026, stay alert to regulations or FAQs issued by the California Civil Rights Department or other agencies. For example, other laws (like expanded pay data reporting) also come into effect January 1, 2026.

Lots to do… Sigh.

About Shaw Law Group 

At Shaw Law Group, we do more than practice employment law—we partner with employers to build compliant, respectful, and productive workplaces. From day-to-day advice and counsel to impartial workplace investigations, proactive HR audits, dynamic training programs, and sensitive pre-litigation matters, our experienced team helps clients stay ahead of the curve—and out of court.

The post California’s New “Know-Your-Rights” Notice Requirement first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

California’s leave and accommodation landscape is expanding again in 2026 — and employers should start preparing now. With new legislation broadening when employees can take time off and heightened enforcement priorities under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), compliance will require more than a simple policy update.

The centerpiece of these changes is Assembly Bill 406, which significantly expands California’s paid sick time law, the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act (HWHFA). Together with new Civil Rights Department (CRD) guidance, expanded “safe time” protections, and continuing developments under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), the 2026 changes will impact policies, procedures, and day-to-day HR decision-making.

Expanded Paid Sick and Safe Time Under AB 406

Effective January 1, 2026, AB 406 broadens the list of permissible reasons employees can use paid sick and safe time under the HWHFA. Most notably, the law now incorporates expanded “safe time” protections from Government Code section 12945.8, extending leave rights to victims of certain crimes — and their family members — for a range of legal and administrative proceedings.

For example, covered employees may now use paid sick or safe time to:

• Attend judicial proceedings connected to a qualifying crime (including post-arrest release decisions, pleas, sentencing, or post-conviction hearings)
• Participate in meetings with prosecutors or law enforcement related to the incident
• Seek or renew restraining orders or protective orders
• Obtain services from a domestic violence shelter, sexual assault program, or victim services organization

Employers must allow employees to use their accrued HWHFA leave for these new purposes, in addition to existing sick and safe time reasons.

New CRD Notice and Survivor Protections

To support these expanded rights, the CRD issued a new mandatory notice, Survivors of Violence and Family Members of Victims – Right to Leave and Accommodations, in July 2025. Employers must post and distribute this notice and ensure that managers and HR staff understand its requirements.

The CRD’s accompanying FAQs clarify several critical points:

• Employees can use any accrued leave (PTO, vacation, sick leave) for protected purposes.
• Confidentiality is mandatory: employers cannot disclose the reason for the leave except as required by law.
• Anti-retaliation protections apply broadly, including against subtle forms of retaliation like schedule changes or exclusion from meetings.

CFRA Coordination: Overlapping Rights Create Complexity

The California Family Rights Act (CFRA) itself — Gov. Code section 12945.2 — is not substantively changing in 2026. It still provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for an employee’s own serious health condition, to care for certain family members (including a “designated person”), for baby bonding, and for certain military exigencies.

However, the expanded HWHFA rights and CRD protections significantly increase the number of scenarios in which multiple leave laws overlap. For example:

• An employee attending a criminal sentencing on behalf of a family member may also qualify for CFRA leave if that family member has a serious health condition.
• Paid sick time under HWHFA may run concurrently with FEHA accommodations if the absence is related to a disability or safety planning.

Employers must carefully analyze each situation at intake to determine whether it qualifies under the HWHFA, Government Code section 12945.8, the CFRA, pregnancy disability leave (PDL), and/or FEHA — and provide the proper designation notices and protections.

Designated Person and Future Changes

The “designated person” concept — allowing employees to take CFRA leave to care for someone with whom they have a family-like relationship — remains unchanged in 2026. Employers may continue to limit employees to one designated person per 12-month period.

Looking ahead, however, California’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) program will adopt a similar “designated person” category starting on July 1, 2028. This change will not affect current CFRA or HWHFA rights, but it is worth planning for because it likely will lead to more complex coordination of benefits and leave entitlements in the future.

Compliance Challenges on the Horizon

The expanded laws create several new operational challenges for employers:

• Intermittent leave stacking. Employees may take separate leave under the HWHFA, CFRA, and FEHA, leading to overlapping absences.
• Local ordinance conflicts. Employers operating in jurisdictions with local sick leave ordinances must harmonize those rules with the new AB 406 uses.
• Confidentiality and safety. Victim-related leave requests often involve sensitive information, requiring specialized handling and documentation protocols.
• Recordkeeping. HRIS systems should be updated to reflect the new categories of leave and ensure accurate reporting.

The Next Steps

With the above changes taking effect on January 1, 2026, HR teams should act now to stay ahead of the compliance curve:

1. Update leave policies and handbooks to incorporate AB 406’s expanded HWHFA uses and reference Government Code section 12945.8.
2. Post and distribute the new CRD notice and train managers on confidentiality, retaliation, and safety-related leave issues.
3. Refresh intake procedures so HR can quickly identify which leave laws apply, issue proper designation notices, and track concurrent leave accurately.
4. Train managers and supervisors to recognize when requests may implicate victim/survivor rights and how to escalate them properly.
5. Audit HRIS and payroll codes to ensure the new leave categories are captured for reporting and compliance purposes.
6. Plan ahead for 2028 by reviewing policies and workflows that will intersect with PFL’s forthcoming “designated person” expansion.

Bottom Line

California’s 2026 leave changes reflect the state’s continued focus on expanding employee protections — particularly for victims and survivors of violence. The result is a more complex web of overlapping rights under CFRA, HWHFA, FEHA, and other statutes. Employers that invest in proactive policy updates, manager training, and process improvements now will be far better positioned to manage risk — and to support their workforce with empathy and compliance — when the new rules take effect.

About Shaw Law Group 

At Shaw Law Group, we do more than practice employment law—we partner with employers to build compliant, respectful, and productive workplaces. From day-to-day advice and counsel to impartial workplace investigations, proactive HR audits, dynamic training programs, and sensitive pre-litigation matters, our experienced team helps clients stay ahead of the curve—and out of court.

The post Leave Just Got More Complex: What California Employers Must Do in 2026 first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

California is doubling down on pay equity and transparency in 2026. Building on Senate Bill 1162—which created California’s modern pay data reporting program and job‑posting pay scale rules—the Civil Rights Department (CRD) will continue to require detailed annual pay data submissions, and new legislation sharpens enforcement and refines transparency standards. For HR professionals and in‑house counsel, that means earlier coordination with payroll and talent acquisition, tighter vendor management, and stronger documentation.

The Core Requirements Are Not Changing

California law requires private sector employers with 100 or more employees to submit an annual “Payroll Employee Report” to the CRD. Employers with 100 or more workers hired through labor contractors must also submit a separate “Labor Contractor Employee Report.” The reports are filed through the CRD’s online portal. The deadline is the second Wednesday in May each year; for Reporting Year 2025, that date is May 13, 2026. The CRD’s “Pay Data Reporting” website page and FAQs confirm the cadence, templates, and mechanics, and emphasize that filings must be made through the portal. Failure to file can trigger enforcement action.

What Information is Included in Report?

Employers report workforce counts by establishment, job category, pay band, race/ethnicity, and sex, and must include the median and mean hourly rate for each grouping. The “snapshot period” is a single pay period between October 1 and December 31 of the reporting year.

What’s New for 2026?

For 2026, there are a few new requirements:

• Senate Bill 464, which Governor Newsom signed October 2025, toughens California’s pay data reporting regime by making penalties effectively mandatory when the CRD seeks them and requiring employers to store demographic data separately from personnel records. We also expect adjustments to job categories in 2027. HR should plan now for stricter enforcement and cleaner data governance.

• The California Legislature also enacted SB 642, which is effective on January 1, 2026 and refines the definition of “pay scale” in job postings. The new law also extends the statute of limitations for certain pay transparency and equal pay claims to three years, with a six‑year look‑ Employers should expect greater scrutiny of posted ranges, the documentation supporting those ranges, and retention practices.

Deadlines and Penalties

Under Government Code section 12999(f), the CRD may seek civil penalties of $100 per employee for a first failure to file and $200 per employee for subsequent failures, and recover its enforcement costs.

Practical Trouble Spots

There are a few areas of complication:

• Multi‑entity organizations may need to determine whether related entities comprise an “integrated enterprise,” which affects whether a combined report is permissible.

• Vendor and labor‑contractor arrangements can create timing problems if the contractor’s data are late or incomplete; the statute allows a court to apportion penalties to a labor contractor that failed to provide data, but the client employer is still responsible for filing on time.

• Mergers, acquisitions, and spin‑offs complicate year‑over‑year comparability and snapshot decisions; The CRD’s FAQs address several scenarios and encourage clear remarks when data are missing or changed by corporate events.

The Next Steps

California employers covered by the reporting requirements have a few tasks:

• Build a 2026 reporting calendar. Work backward from May 13, 2026. Set internal cut‑offs for payroll validation, demographic QA, job category mapping, and executive sign‑

• Lock your snapshot period. Choose—and document—a late‑year pay period that produces stable data.

• Coordinate early with labor contractors. Contractually require required data on a firm timeline; specify fields and who will certify the accuracy.

• Tighten data governance. Store demographic data separately from personnel records and review access controls to align with SB 464 commentary.

• Tune job postings. Update the definition and documentation of “pay scale,” expand retention practices, and train recruiters on SB 642 refinements.

• Validate analytics. Recheck pay band mapping, mean/median calculations, and any custom groupings; keep an audit trail of changes.

• Prepare for questions. Brief leaders on how to discuss pay ranges and pay equity initiatives without over‑

Bottom Line

California’s 2026 cycle will not be business as usual. Expect heightened scrutiny of the accuracy and governance of your pay data reporting and sharper expectations around what you publish in job postings. Treat the May deadline as the end of a year‑round process—not a one‑time upload.

Shaw Law Group is tracking the CRD guidance and the rollout of SB 642 and SB 464; if you need a readiness review or updates to job posting and reporting workflows, we can help.

About Shaw Law Group 

At Shaw Law Group, we do more than practice employment law—we partner with employers to build compliant, respectful, and productive workplaces. From day-to-day advice and counsel to impartial workplace investigations, proactive HR audits, dynamic training programs, and sensitive pre-litigation matters, our experienced team helps clients stay ahead of the curve—and out of court.

The post Pay Data Reporting Just Got Tougher for 2026 first appeared on Shaw Law Group.