What's New in Employment Law?

California employers routinely underestimate cell phone reimbursement. Labor Code section 2802 requires reimbursement for necessary business expenses, including personal cell phone use. The mistake is assuming the obligation only applies when use is substantial. It does not. Any work-related use can trigger reimbursement. A quick call, a text to a supervisor, or logging into a system from a personal device is enough. This is where liability starts to build.

Unlimited Plans Do Not Eliminate the Obligation
One of the most common missteps is relying on the idea that employees are not incurring additional costs. California law rejects that argument. The issue is not whether the employee pays more out of pocket. The issue is whether the employer has shifted a business expense to the employee. Even with an unlimited plan, employers must reimburse a reasonable percentage of the cost when personal phones are used for work.

Policies Are Where Employers Get Into Trouble
Many employers either lack a clear policy or rely on one that does not hold up. Requirements that employees submit detailed bills, prove increased costs, or show substantial use create risk. The law does not require that level of proof. The obligation sits with the employer. Policies that discourage reimbursement or make it difficult to obtain often become evidence in wage claims and PAGA actions.

Stipends Can Work If They Are Defensible
A flat monthly stipend is often the most practical approach. It creates consistency and reduces administrative burden. But the number has to be reasonable. A stipend chosen for convenience, without any connection to actual usage, is unlikely to satisfy the law. Employers should be able to explain how the amount was determined and revisit it as roles and usage change. One size does not always fit all.

Remote Work Increased the Exposure
Remote and hybrid work made this issue more visible. Employees now rely more heavily on personal devices for communication and access. What once felt occasional is now routine. That shift increases risk, especially in California where expense reimbursement claims are frequently included in class actions and PAGA cases. These claims are easy to assert and expensive to defend.

The Compliance Trap
Employers often treat this as a minor issue. It is not. Failure to reimburse can lead to wage claims, waiting time penalties, PAGA exposure, and attorneys’ fees. The risk is not the reimbursement itself. The risk is the cumulative liability that follows when the obligation is ignored or handled inconsistently.

What Employers Should Do Now
Start with a simple question. Are employees using personal cell phones for any work-related purpose. If the answer is “yes,” reimbursement is required. Review policies and remove unnecessary barriers. Evaluate any stipend for reasonableness and document the rationale. Train managers to support compliance, not undermine it.

Bottom Line
If personal cell phones are used for work, reimbursement is not optional. The cost of getting it right is predictable. The cost of getting it wrong is not.

The post Cell Phone Reimbursement Done Right first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

A company hires workers and calls them independent contractors. They sign agreements. They get 1099s. Everyone is aligned with what they are.

Until they’re not.

That’s exactly what happened in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court—a case that reshaped how California looks at independent contractors and made one thing very clear: You don’t get to decide classification. The law does.

Here’s the problem. In California, classification is not about what you call someone. It is not about what’s written in the agreement. It is not about what the worker prefers. And it is definitely not about what “makes sense” for your business. Classification is about how the relationship actually functions. And California applies that analysis aggressively.

Employers rarely get tripped up because of their bad intent. It’s speed. It’s trying to solve real business problems in real time. “We just need someone flexible—a contractor.” “They’re paid a salary—exempt.” “They’re learning—intern.” Those decisions feel practical. But California law is not built around what feels practical—it’s built around specific legal tests that don’t flex just because your situation is messy.

After Dynamex, California adopted the ABC test for independent contractors, and it is unforgiving. To classify someone as a contractor, you must prove: (A) they are free from your control and direction; (B) they perform work outside your usual course of business; and (C) they are independently established in that trade. Miss one of these, and they’re an employee. Not close. Not mostly. An employee.

And it’s not just contractors. The same problem shows up everywhere. Exempt versus non-exempt? Salary alone is not enough. Interns? The training must primarily benefit the intern, not the employer. Volunteers? Generally, that’s not a thing in for-profit businesses. Different labels, same issue: employers rely on assumptions instead of applying the actual legal standard.

What happens when this unravels is predictable, and expensive. Misclassification turns into overtime and minimum wage claims, missed meal and rest break liability, unreimbursed expenses, waiting time penalties, PAGA exposure, and often class or representative actions. And it rarely stops with one person. It spreads across the role.

The employers who stay out of trouble do one thing differently. They slow this down. They ask what the role actually looks like day-to-day, how much control they’re really exercising, and whether the classification meets the legal test and not just the business need. They make the decision at the front end, and they document it. Because fixing this later is always harder, and always more expensive.

The bottom line: Classification is not a label. It’s a legal conclusion. And when you get it wrong, it adds up fast.

The post Employee Misclassification: It Adds Up Fast first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Artificial intelligence has quietly made its way into HR’s day-to-day work. It shows up in performance reviews, investigation summaries, interview questions, and even discipline memoranda. For busy teams, it can feel like a lifesaver. Tasks that used to take an hour now take five minutes, and the output often looks polished and complete.
That is exactly why it is so easy to rely on it.
But AI is not a shortcut to good judgment. And that is where the risk starts.
Most AI tools are designed to generate language that sounds right, not to apply the law correctly or account for the specific context of a workplace. They do not know your organization, your past practices, or the history behind a particular employee situation. They are predicting what a good answer looks like based on patterns, not evaluating what the right answer is under California law.
That gap matters more than people think.
We are already seeing situations where HR professionals rely on AI-generated content that feels solid on the surface but misses something important underneath. Sometimes the issue is subtle. The explanation is slightly off, or the reasoning skips a key step. Other times, the problem is more direct. The output states something as fact that is not accurate, or offers guidance that does not hold up when you look at the actual legal standard.
Even more challenging, the same question asked twice can produce different answers. That kind of inconsistency is not just frustrating. It creates risk when HR is trying to make decisions that need to be consistent, documented, and defensible.
There is also the issue of tone and framing. AI can draft a clean, professional write-up, but it may unintentionally introduce language that sounds harsher than intended or, just as problematic, too vague to support a decision later. In the investigation context, which can affect how findings are characterized. In the discipline context, it negatively can affect whether the documentation actually supports the outcome.
And then there is confidentiality. Many HR professionals are inputting real employee scenarios into AI tools without considering where that information is going or how it is being stored. That is a problem, particularly in California, where privacy expectations are higher and regulators are paying attention.
None of this means employers should avoid AI. The reality is that it is already here, and it can be incredibly useful when used correctly. It can help organize thoughts, create a starting point, and save time on routine drafting. But it has to stay in its lane.
The employers who are navigating this well are treating AI as a first draft, not a final answer. They make sure a human being with actual judgment reviews and refines the output before it goes anywhere near a personnel file or a decision. They also are more thoughtful about when to use AI at all, especially in higher-risk situations involving hiring, discipline, or termination.
In California, that level of care is not optional. The legal standards are too specific, and the exposure is too real.
The bottom line is simple. AI can make HR faster, but it does not make it smarter. That still comes from the people using it.
When something goes wrong, of course, AI will not be explaining the decision. The employer will.

The post HR + AI: Smart Tool and Real Risk first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

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

That assumption is where employers get into trouble.

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

That is the disconnect employers often miss.

The Shift Employers Need to Understand

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

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

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

Where Employers Get It Wrong

There are a few predictable missteps we continue to see.

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

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

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

The Real Risk Is the Response

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

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

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

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

A Practical Framework That Holds Up

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

A few practical steps make a significant difference:

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

Why This Matters More Now

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

      

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

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

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

What the Law Actually Requires

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

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

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

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

Where Employers Are Getting Into Trouble

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

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

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

And then there is the biggest risk area: retaliation.

The Litigation Trend: Retaliation Claims

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

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

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

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

The CFRA Confusion

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

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

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

A Practical Approach That Holds Up

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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