What's New In Employment Law?

Yes, this is our second holiday post in the past few weeks. We focused the last one on parties, but there’s more to discuss!

The holiday season is a welcome opportunity to recognize employees and build connections. It also brings unique challenges for HR professionals who must balance celebration with compliance, safety, and fairness. With thoughtful planning, though, employers can create a positive experience for everyone while reducing legal and operational risk.

Office Parties: Celebrate Safely and Inclusively

Holiday gatherings can support morale, but they require clear expectations and safeguards.

Alcohol and Safety
If alcohol will be served, consider measures such as drink limits, transportation options, or designated event monitors. Employers may bear responsibility if an intoxicated employee causes harm after the event.

Inclusive Themes
Use neutral, seasonal themes so all employees feel welcome, regardless of their cultural or religious practices.

Policy Reminders
Anti-harassment, conduct, and respectful workplace policies apply at employer-sponsored events. A brief reminder to staff can help reinforce expectations.

Gifts and Bonuses: Show Appreciation Thoughtfully

Year-end recognition should be handled in a consistent and compliant way.

Consistent Criteria
Apply gift and bonus decisions based on objective standards to avoid claims of favoritism or discrimination.

Tax Considerations
Cash gifts and gift cards typically are taxable. Work with payroll to ensure proper reporting.

Voluntary Participation

If you offer a gift exchange or team activity, clarify that participation is optional.

Managing Time Off Requests

The holidays often mean overlapping requests for vacation or other leave.

Apply Policies Consistently
Follow your written policies and apply them in a uniform manner to avoid claims of unequal treatment.

Religious Accommodations
Employees may request time off for religious observances. Employers must consider reasonable accommodations unless doing so creates an undue hardship.

Communications and Workplace Humor

Seasonal messages and humor can easily be misunderstood.

Keep Messages Professional
Email greetings, digital cards, and team messages should reflect your organization’s professional standards.

Avoid Sensitive Topics
Steer clear of jokes or themes involving religion, protected characteristics, or personal appearance.

Decorations and Safety Considerations

Festive décor can boost morale but keep safety and inclusivity in mind.

Safety First
Ensure decorations do not block exits, overload electrical outlets, or create tripping hazards.

Neutral and Respectful
Use décor that reflects the season broadly. Avoid religious symbols unless they appear in a wider, inclusive display.

Virtual Celebrations

Even virtual events require structure and clear expectations.

Policy Compliance
Remind employees that all workplace policies apply in virtual settings, including chat features, backgrounds, and shared content.

Optional Attendance
Avoid making participation mandatory—employees may have personal obligations, different comfort levels, or non-observance of holidays.

Set Expectations Early

A brief reminder to staff can prevent confusion and ensure a smooth season.

Clarify Event Details
Communicate whether events are voluntary, whether alcohol will be available, and who is responsible for transportation.

Reinforce Policies
A short, respectful note highlighting key policies can prevent misunderstandings.

Model Professionalism
Leadership behavior sets the tone. Managers should demonstrate the conduct expected from employees at celebratory events.

Final Thoughts

The holidays provide an opportunity to strengthen team culture and show appreciation. By planning ahead, communicating clearly, and applying policies consistently, employers can support a safe, positive, and inclusive environment throughout the season.

The post Holiday HR Tips first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

A new decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit—Chapman v. Maryland Department of State Police—reinforces a critical truth: good documentation wins cases.

Although this decision is not binding on California employers, it offers an important real-world example of how consistent, specific, and contemporaneous documentation can defeat discrimination claims before they ever reach a jury.

What Happened?

The plaintiff, Derek Chapman, challenged his termination from the Maryland Office of the State Fire Marshal, alleging that the employer’s stated reasons were discriminatory and pretextual. The Fourth Circuit disagreed.

In affirming summary judgment for the employer, the court emphasized:

• Clear, detailed documentation of repeated performance problems
• Consistent explanations from supervisors and managers
• Contemporaneous records showing ongoing efforts to correct the issues
• Objective evidence undermining the plaintiff’s alternative explanations

The court concluded that, because the employer’s documentation was solid and aligned with its stated reasons, Chapman could not create a factual dispute about pretext.

This is precisely the kind of outcome every California employer hopes for—but rarely gets—unless the documentation is airtight.

Why This Case Matters for California Employers

Again, Chapman is not binding authority in California. But California employers should pay close attention because:

• The FEHA has broad employee protections
• California has a low evidentiary burden for retaliation claims
• California juries are skeptical of undocumented performance issues

So, employers must have documentation that is consistent, credible, and contemporaneous if they want to avoid trial.

Key Lessons

1. Consistency is not optional.

The employer in Chapman won because every document, every email, and every performance note told the same story. In California, inconsistent records are one of the fastest paths to huge settlements or trials.

2. Details matter.

Generalized statements— “poor attitude,” “not a team player,” “needs improvement”—are not persuasive. The Fourth Circuit was convinced by facts, not opinions or vague conclusions.

3. Document in real time.

The police department’s contemporaneous documentation of Chapman’s performance issues was essential to their defense. California courts view late-created documentation with suspicion.

4. Supervisor training pays off.

In Chapman, supervisors properly documented expectations, follow-up conversations, and corrective steps. California employers should not assume supervisors know how to take these steps without solid training.

5. Strong documentation is the best pretext defense.

The police department prevailed because its records overwhelmingly supported its decision. In California’s FEHA world, that kind of documentation is often the difference between summary judgment and a six-figure settlement or verdict.

Coming Soon: Our New Webinar on Effective Documentation

Because strong documentation continues to be one of the most powerful legal protections for employers, we are launching a new webinar focused exclusively on:

“Documentation Done Right: Building Credible, Consistent Records Every Time”
Date: TBD — Details and registration coming soon

This session will include practical language examples, templates, and the do’s and don’ts leaders need to understand to protect your organization.

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 Strong Documentation Saves the Day first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

The holiday season is officially here, and many California employers are planning in-person celebrations to close out the year. Although these events can be a wonderful way to boost morale and strengthen connections, they also create legal risks if not handled carefully. From alcohol-related issues to harassment claims to wage-hour compliance, holiday parties are more complicated than they may appear.

Here are the key risks — and how you can stay off the naughty list.

1. Alcohol Creates Predictable (and Preventable) Problems

Even a single glass of wine can blur judgment. In California, employers can face liability for:

• Alcohol-related injuries if someone drinks too much at a company-sponsored event and later causes harm
• Off-hand comments or inappropriate behavior that may qualify as unlawful harassment
• “After-parties” that employees claim were part of the employer-sponsored event

Practical tips:

• Use drink tickets, hire professional bartenders, and offer plenty of non-alcoholic options
• Consider hosting the event during the day (or as a lunch)
• Make it clear in advance that after-parties are not employer-sponsored

2. Harassment Claims Spike During the Holidays

Holiday parties blend work and social settings — a perfect storm for misunderstandings and boundary-crossing. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employers can be liable for harassment at work-related events, even if attendance is voluntary and off-site.

Common issues include:

• Off-color jokes or comments
• Unwanted touching or overly friendly behavior
• Party photos or social-media posts that cross the line

Practical tips:

• Send a friendly reminder beforehand, reinforcing respectful behavior expectations
• Ensure leaders model appropriate conduct
• Designate managers to discreetly monitor the event

3. Wage-Hour Traps: Paid Time, Travel Time, and Attendance

If attendance at the event is required — or if employees reasonably believe it is — the employer may owe wages for the time spent at the event. Other wage-hour pitfalls include:

• Requiring non-exempt employees to staff the event without compensating them
• Asking non-exempt employees to set up or clean up without tracking hours
• Failing to reimburse travel time if the event is off-site and mandatory

Practical tips:

• Clearly state whether attendance is voluntary
• Track all time worked for non-exempt employees, including setup and breakdown
• Pay non-exempt employees for travel time if the event is required and off-site

4. Gifts, Raffles, and Recognition: Tax and Fairness Issues

Employee gifts may be taxable compensation depending on the value and type. Raffles and recognition programs can also create unintended issues if employees feel excluded or unfairly treated.

Practical tips:

• Keep gifts modest and equitable
• Check tax rules for gift cards and cash equivalents
• Avoid contests or raffles that could be viewed as discriminatory

5. Protect Your Culture — Not Just Your Liability

Holiday parties reflect your organization’s values. Employers who set clear expectations and create safe, inclusive events reduce legal exposure and build trust.

Consider:

• Including employees of different shifts and locations
• Take steps to make non-drinkers feel fully included
• Offering accessible venues and activities

Final Thoughts

A well-planned holiday party can be a fantastic way to end the year on a high note. By setting expectations, managing alcohol, monitoring behavior, and complying with California wage-hour rules, employers can celebrate confidently — without inviting unnecessary risk.

If you’d like help reviewing your holiday party communications, policies, or manager talking points, our team is here to help.

Happy almost Thanksgiving!

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 Keeping Holiday Parties Low Risk first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

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.