What's New in Employment Law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong organizations create systems that:

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

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

Don’t Wait for a Breaking Point

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

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

Join Me on June 24

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

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

Participants will learn how to:

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

Register here.

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

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

      

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      

Last week, I traded email alerts for the sounds of Yellowstone.

I saw bison, elk, black bears, grizzly bears, wolves, and more — all moving through a vast ecosystem that somehow works without urgency, ego, or inboxes.

That sight stayed with me.

For leaders, unplugging can feel uncomfortable. We tell ourselves every issue needs our attention, and every email needs a quick response. But stepping away offers perspective. The work continues. The team steps up. The world keeps turning.

While I was away, our incredible team kept things moving with skill, judgment, and care. I’m deeply grateful to them for covering me so I could truly disconnect and be present.

I’m also grateful to our clients for their patience while I recharged. In a profession where responsiveness matters, I never take that understanding for granted.

Yellowstone reminded me that balance isn’t a luxury. It is part of sustainability — in nature, in leadership, and in life.

I came back grateful: for the wild places that restore us, for clients who understand that people need room to breathe, and especially for a team I can trust completely.

That may be the ultimate leadership test: creating something that no longer depends on you, and then having the confidence to step aside.

The post The Yellowstone Rule: Step Away and Trust the Team first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Artificial intelligence is already changing how employers make staffing decisions. Some companies are using AI to improve efficiency. Others are using automation to reduce headcount, delay hiring, or restructure work.

California lawmakers are now paying attention.

Senate Bill 951 would require employers with more than 100 employees to provide 90 days’ advance notice when AI or automation results in the loss of 25 or more jobs.

The bill also would require employers to notify the state when they stop hiring for a position because AI or automation has taken over that work. The bill calls that notice a “technology hiring disruption notice.”

That requirement would be a significant expansion of traditional layoff notice obligations. Existing laws generally focus on actual job losses. SB 951 would focus not only on employees who lose jobs, but also on positions that disappear because technology replaces the need to hire.

Even if SB 951 does not become law in its current form, the bill is worth watching. California is clearly focused on how AI will affect workers and hiring opportunities.

Employers considering AI tools should evaluate whether those tools could eliminate existing jobs, change job duties, or reduce future hiring needs. Those decisions should not be left only to IT or operations. HR, legal, and business leaders should be involved before AI-driven staffing decisions are made.

Employers also should document why staffing decisions are being made. Clear documentation may be important if employees, regulators, or plaintiffs’ attorneys later question whether a layoff, hiring freeze, or restructuring decision was actually driven by technology, cost-cutting, performance, or some other reason.

The takeaway is simple: AI may make business decisions faster, but it will not make employment law disappear. California employers should monitor SB 951 and build legal review into AI-related workforce planning now.

The post AI Layoffs Are Coming: Watch for New Notice Obligations first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

As election season heats up, employers should expect more political discussion at work, more employee social media activity outside of work, and more tension between employees with strongly held views.

For California employers, the issue is not simply whether politics belong in the workplace. The better question is what employers can regulate without violating California law.

California Protects Political Activity

California gives employees significant protection when it comes to political activity. Labor Code section 1101 generally prohibits employers from making or enforcing rules that prevent employees from engaging in politics or becoming candidates for public office. Labor Code section 1102 generally prohibits employers from using threats of termination or other job-related consequences to influence or control an employee’s political activities.

That means employers should be careful when responding to an employee’s support for a candidate, attendance at a rally, political donation, campaign activity, or political affiliation.

Off-Duty Conduct Creates More Risk

California also protects certain lawful off-duty conduct. Labor Code section 96(k) allows claims for lost wages when an employee is demoted, suspended, or discharged for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises. Labor Code section 98.6 separately prohibits retaliation or discrimination against employees for conduct covered by section 96(k) and other protected activities.

These protections do not give employees unlimited freedom to say or do anything without workplace consequences. However, they do make discipline riskier when the conduct occurred outside work, away from the workplace, and did not violate any neutral workplace rule.

Employers Still Can Enforce Workplace Rules

Political activity protections do not mean employers have to let politics take over the workplace.

Employers may still enforce neutral rules about working time, productivity, harassment, discrimination, bullying, threats, workplace violence, use of company systems, dress codes, solicitation, and customer service. The key is consistency.

A policy that limits disruptive political arguments during working time is very different from a supervisor telling employees which candidate they should support. A rule against harassment is very different from discipline based on an employee’s political affiliation.

Voting Leave Obligations Matter Too

Voting issues also deserve attention. In California, employees who do not have enough time outside working hours to vote in a statewide election may take enough working time to vote without loss of pay, with up to two hours paid. Employers also must post the required voting leave notice before statewide elections.

Employers should make sure managers understand the voting leave rules before election questions start coming in.

Political Discussions Can Create Other Legal Risks

The risk increases when politics intersects with other protected categories. A political debate can quickly become a complaint about race, religion, national origin, gender identity, immigration status, disability, military status, or another protected characteristic.

Employers also may see complaints involving harassment, retaliation, unequal discipline, protected concerted activity, or off-duty conduct.

Broad Bans Are Not the Answer

The safest approach is not to ban all political discussion. Broad bans can create their own legal problems and are difficult to enforce fairly.

Instead, employers should focus on conduct, not viewpoints. Managers should know they may not pressure employees to support a candidate, oppose a measure, attend a political event, make a contribution, or stay quiet about lawful political activity outside work.

What Employers Should Review Now

Employers should review policies before a heated workplace situation forces a rushed decision. The most important policies include harassment prevention, workplace violence prevention, electronic communications, social media, solicitation and distribution, dress code, standards of conduct, conflict of interest, and voting leave.

Employers also should remind managers when to involve HR, especially if political tension becomes personal, threatening, discriminatory, or disruptive.

The Bottom Line

California employers can maintain a respectful, productive workplace during election season. The risk comes from regulating the viewpoint instead of the conduct. Focus on disruption, harassment, threats, working time, and business impact — not on which side an employee supports.

The post Politics at Work: What California Employers Can and Cannot Control first appeared on Shaw Law Group.