What's New in Employment Law?

California lawmakers recently introduced AB 1940 (Calderon), a bill that would explicitly add perimenopause, menopause, post-menopause, and related medical conditions to the definition of “sex” under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Although FEHA already protects against sex discrimination and covers pregnancy- and childbirth-related conditions, AB 1940 would make menopause-related conditions unmistakably part of that framework. If enacted, the message to employers is clear: menopause-related workplace issues will be treated as protected-status matters under FEHA.

The Key Provisions

AB 1940 would:

1. Amend Government Code section 12926

            The bill adds perimenopause, menopause, post-menopause, and related medical conditions to FEHA’s definition of “sex.” That means adverse action, harassment, or failure to accommodate related to menopause symptoms could trigger sex discrimination claims.

2. Require a poster update by July 1, 2027

            The Civil Rights Department (CRD) would be required to update its discrimination poster to notify employees of rights and protections related to menopause.

3. Mandate statewide outreach and education

            The Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement would be required to conduct multilingual, culturally competent public education campaigns about menopause-related workplace rights, including accommodations, medical leave, disability protections, and anti-retaliation provisions.

So What?

Even before this bill, menopause-related symptoms could fall under disability law depending on severity. AB 1940 simply removes any ambiguity and puts menopause squarely in the “sex discrimination” category.

That matters because common workplace scenarios can quickly become risk points:

• A strong performer begins experiencing brain fog, fatigue, anxiety, migraines, or sleep disruption
• Attendance becomes inconsistent
• A manager makes an age- or hormone-related comments
• An employee requests schedule flexibility, remote work, cooling accommodations, or additional breaks
• Performance counseling begins before HR evaluates whether a medical condition is involved

Once menopause is expressly tied to “sex,” stray comments, delayed accommodations, or inconsistent handling could support discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation claims.

What Should Employers Do Now?

Train leaders on appropriate responses. Leaders should not comment on age, hormones, or menopause — even casually. If an employee raises medical symptoms, supervisors should pause and involve HR rather than push forward with discipline.

Strengthen your interactive process. Common menopause-related accommodations may include temperature adjustments, schedule modifications, intermittent leave, or remote work flexibility. Treat these requests the same way as any FEHA accommodation request: engage promptly, document the dialogue, assess essential functions, and evaluate reasonable options.

Review attendance and performance systems. Rigid point systems or aggressive productivity metrics can create exposure if there is no structured exception process for protected leave or disability-related absences.

Address workplace culture. The larger risk often is not the accommodation itself, but coworker reactions or leader bias. Harassment or subtle exclusion tied to age or menopause-related stereotypes could create liability under a sex-based theory.

The Bottom Line

AB 1940 reflects a broader trend toward making menopause a visible workplace compliance issue. If it passes, enforcement agencies and employees will have clearer statutory language to rely on.

The smart move is proactive: train your leaders, tighten your interactive process, and ensure menopause-related issues are handled with the same rigor as pregnancy and other protected medical conditions.

Prevention is always far less expensive than defense.

The post AB 1940: Menopause May Be Included in FEHA’s Definition of “Sex” first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

There is a renewed push to bring employees back into the office. Leaders want collaboration, mentorship, culture, and innovation. All legitimate business objectives.

But here is the part that cannot get lost in the momentum: a return-to-office mandate does not cancel your obligations under the law.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued guidance to federal agencies explaining how they must handle telework accommodations while implementing a full-time, in-person directive. Although the guidance applies to the federal workforce under the Rehabilitation Act, the legal analysis mirrors the ADA and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

For private employers, the message is clear: your business strategy may evolve. Your legal obligations have not.

The Legal Risk is in the Rollout, Not the Decision

You are allowed to decide that in-person work is better for your organization. You are not allowed to revoke disability accommodations across the board because you want everyone back onsite.

The exposure does not come from announcing a return-to-office policy. It comes from implementing it without individualized assessment. If an employee has an approved telework accommodation, you must reassess whether the disability still exists, whether it still impacts essential functions, and whether telework remains necessary.

That process must be grounded in facts. Not frustration. Not optics. Not culture debates.

Blanket revocations are where lawsuits begin.

“We Did it Remotely During COVID” is Not the End of the Story

Pandemic flexibility did not permanently redefine every job as remote.

You may restore essential functions that require physical presence if those functions are genuinely essential today. But expect scrutiny. Courts will ask why a role performed remotely for two years now requires daily onsite attendance.

“Because we prefer it” will not carry much legal weight. Demonstrating that supervision, collaboration, safety, confidentiality, or operational demands require physical presence will.

Essential functions must reflect current business realities — not reactionary swings.

Telework Can Be Reasonable. But it is Not Automatic

Telework is sometimes a reasonable accommodation. It is not a guaranteed one, though.

The law does not require employers to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation. It requires an effective accommodation. If modified schedules, workspace adjustments, assistive technology, or task restructuring allow the employee to perform essential functions in the office, you may choose those options instead.

But if telework is the only effective way for the employee to perform essential job duties, you likely must provide it unless it creates undue hardship. That decision must be evidence-based. Not philosophical.

Anxiety About the Office is Not Automatically Disabling

Many employers are seeing accommodation requests tied to anxiety about returning to in-person work.

The law does not guarantee a stress-free workplace. The legal question is whether a medical condition substantially limits the employee’s ability to perform essential job functions or to access a benefit of employment. If the employee can perform successfully onsite, that fact matters. If there is a legitimate barrier, you engage in the interactive process and explore reasonable solutions.

Remote work becomes legally required only if other effective accommodations will not work and telework would not impose undue hardship. Discomfort is not the same as disability.

Commute Problems Usually Stay With the Employee

A long commute. Traffic. Relocating during the pandemic. These realities are understandable. They typically are not accommodation obligations, though.

Employers generally are not required to eliminate commuting barriers outside their control. Flexible scheduling may sometimes be reasonable. Permanent telework solely to address commute challenges usually is not.

This distinction matters as organizations recalibrate expectations.

You Can Reevaluate Pandemic-Era Accommodations

Many telework arrangements were granted quickly during COVID with limited documentation.

You may revisit them. You may request updated medical information. You may reassess whether telework remains necessary. You may determine that circumstances have changed.

What you cannot do is revoke accommodations reflexively or as part of a sweeping policy reset. Reevaluation must remain individualized and defensible.

The Quiet Risk: Retaliation

Employees who request or receive accommodations are protected from retaliation.

Managers who characterize telework requesters as less committed, less loyal, or less promotable create exposure that has nothing to do with remote work and everything to do with discipline and training.

Return-to-office enforcement and disability compliance must operate with the same level of professionalism. Tone, documentation, and consistency matter.

The Real Bottom Line

Return-to-office is a leadership decision. Disability accommodation is a legal framework. Smart employers treat them as parallel tracks. They implement business strategy while engaging in disciplined, individualized analysis. They train managers. They document decisions. They resist the temptation to solve everything with one sweeping policy. You can bring people back. You just cannot bring them back blindly.

A Few Final Words

Most disability-related lawsuits do not start with bad intent. They start with rushed implementation.

If you are rolling out a return-to-office mandate and want to pressure-test your approach before it becomes a claim, now is the time to do it — not after the demand letter arrives.

Smart prevention beats expensive defense. Every time.

The post Return-to-Office Doesn’t Override Accommodation Obligations first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

From time to time, HR hears a familiar complaint: “Employees are speaking another language, and it’s making others uncomfortable.”

The impulse to step in is understandable. But in California, restricting language use at work is one of the quickest ways to create legal exposure—and just as importantly, to damage morale and trust.

California Law Leaves Little Room for Language Policing

California treats language restrictions as closely tied to national origin discrimination. “English-only”: rules are presumed unlawful unless the employer can show a clear business necessity, and even then, the rule must be narrowly defined and consistently enforced.

The risk goes beyond banning a language outright. Prohibiting certain dialects of Spanish, correcting accents, or disciplining employees for “how” they speak is equally problematic. Regulators and courts view these distinctions as proxies for national origin, even if the employer believes the issue is professionalism or clarity.

The Cultural Damage Often Outlasts the Legal Risk

Even when no claim is filed, language restrictions frequently undermine workplace culture.

Employees who are told they cannot speak their primary language—particularly during breaks or non-customer-facing work—often feel singled out, monitored, or disrespected. The result is predictable: disengagement, reluctance to speak up, and erosion of trust in HR.

Once employees perceive HR as policing language rather than supporting communication, every future issue becomes harder to manage.

What HR Should Focus On Instead

The goal is not to control language—it’s to ensure effective communication.

Define when English is truly required

If English is necessary for safety, teamwork, or customer interactions, be specific. Meetings, safety briefings, and public-facing roles may justify requirements. Breaks and private conversations generally do not.

Train supervisors before problems arise

Many issues begin when supervisors create their own rules. They should not impose English-only expectations, comment on accents or dialects, or assume employees are being disrespectful because they don’t understand the conversation.

Address exclusion without banning language

Complaints about language are often complaints about feeling left out. HR can encourage inclusive meeting practices, summaries where appropriate, and team norms that promote clarity—without singling out multilingual employees.

Audit handbook language carefully

Policies referencing language use should avoid blanket restrictions, explain legitimate business reasons, and emphasize respect for multilingual employees. Poorly drafted policies frequently are cited in discrimination claims.

Treat dialect policing as an early warning sign

Concerns about “how” Spanish is spoken, rather than whether work is getting done, are a red flag. These issues call for education and leadership coaching, not discipline.

The Bottom Line

Language rules are rarely about communication, and almost always about control. In California, that’s a losing strategy.

If employees are getting the work done, collaborating effectively, and treating each other with respect, the language they use is rarely the problem. Regulating how people speak—especially which languages or dialects are deemed “acceptable”—is far more likely to damage morale and invite scrutiny than improve operations.

The smarter HR approach focuses on clarity, inclusion, and legitimate business needs, not linguistic conformity. When HR solves communication gaps without turning language into a compliance issue, trust stays intact and risk goes down.

The post Why Policing Language at Work is a Risky Move first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

When events like what’s unfolding in Minneapolis dominate the news cycle, they don’t stay outside the workplace. Employees bring their reactions, fears, anger, grief, and opinions with them — into meetings, breakrooms, Slack channels, and client calls.

For California employers, these moments are especially challenging. Leaders want to acknowledge what employees are experiencing without taking political sides, maintain productivity without appearing indifferent, and avoid legal missteps in an already emotionally charged environment.

The reality is this: employers cannot — and should not try to — pretend these conversations aren’t happening. But they also are not required to allow workplace discussions to spiral into conflict or harm.

Why These Conversations Create Risk

High-profile incidents involving race, policing, violence, or social unrest often intersect directly with workplace protections. For some employees, these events feel deeply personal. For others, they prompt strong opinions that escalate quickly.

In the workplace, that combination can lead to:

• Tension between coworkers
• Claims of harassment or hostile work environment
• Allegations of retaliation
• Managers saying too much — or nothing at all — and making things worse

California employers face heightened exposure because state law places broad responsibility on employers to prevent and correct workplace conduct that crosses legal lines, even when it stems from current events rather than traditional workplace disputes.

What Employers Are — and Are Not — Required to Do

Employers often feel caught between two extremes: allowing unlimited discussion or shutting it down entirely. Neither is required.

Employers are not required to:

• Take a political position on current events
• Issue an organization-wide statement
• Allow debate during work time that disrupts operations
• Tolerate speech that targets coworkers based on protected characteristics

At the same time, overly broad bans or inconsistent enforcement can create risk of their own, particularly in California, where certain political activity and concerted activity are protected.

Employers should focus on conduct — not belief.

Managing Workplace Conversations Effectively

The most effective approach is to reinforce existing expectations, rather than creating new rules in the heat of the moment.

That means reminding employees that:

• Professionalism and respect remain workplace requirements
• Disagreements must not become personal or hostile
• Harassment and discrimination are not tolerated, regardless of the topic

Managers are critical in this process. They should be prepared to redirect conversations that become heated, avoid sharing personal opinions in a supervisory role, and escalate concerns to HR early. A single off-the-cuff comment by a manager can create far more exposure than the employee conversation that prompted it.

Watch for Red Flags

Employers should remain alert for warning signs that discussions about current events are crossing legal or cultural lines, including:

• Racial, religious, or national origin stereotypes
• Dismissive comments about a coworker’s lived experience
• Targeting employees who speak up — or those who choose not to
• Unequal enforcement of workplace rules based on perceived viewpoints

Intervention should be based on behavior, not ideology, and applied consistently.

Be Thoughtful About Communications

Some organizations choose to acknowledge major events like Minneapolis directly; others do not. Either approach can be lawful. Problems arise when messages are rushed, overly emotional, or pressure employees to align with a particular viewpoint.

If employers do communicate, messages should be:

• Brief and neutral
• Focused on workplace expectations and respect
• Clear that the workplace remains a professional environment

The Bottom Line

The workplace does not exist in a vacuum — but it also is not a forum for political or social conflict. Events like what’s happening in Minneapolis are heavy and emotional. How employers respond in these moments matters.

California employers should focus on:

• Managing conduct, not beliefs
• Supporting employees without endorsing positions
• Training managers to respond thoughtfully
• Addressing issues early, before they become legal problems

Handled well, these moments can reinforce trust and stability. Handled poorly, they can create lasting legal and cultural damage.

If you need guidance on employee communications, manager training, or navigating workplace issues tied to current events, Shaw Law Group regularly advises employers through exactly these situations — with an emphasis on prevention, clarity, and calm leadership.

The post Talking About Minneapolis — and Other Current Events — at Work first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

California pay scale requirements have been in place for several years, yet many employers remain uncertain about what compliance truly requires. Now that we are in 2026, recent amendments to California’s pay transparency laws make one point clear. Compliance is no longer satisfied by posting a pay range and moving on. The focus is now on whether the pay scale reflects reality.

Labor Code section 432.3 requires covered California employers to disclose pay scales in job postings and to provide a pay scale upon request to applicants and employees (Lab. Code, § 432.3 (a), (c)). Although many employers initially treated pay transparency as a posting requirement, enforcement agencies and plaintiffs’ attorneys are increasingly focused on a different question: Was the pay range meaningful and made in good faith?

What is a “Pay Scale” Under California’s 2026 Amendments

Effective January 1, 2026, amendments to California’s pay scale law clarified what qualifies as a compliant pay scale. A pay scale must reflect a good-faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position at the time of hire (Lab. Code, § 432.3 (a)). This is not a theoretical range, a long-term promotional ceiling, or a placeholder tied loosely to a job title. It is the range the employer genuinely expects to use when making an offer.

This clarification matters because many employers responded to earlier pay transparency laws by posting extremely broad pay ranges. Although wide ranges may have felt safer, they often undermine the purpose of the statute and increase legal risk. A pay scale that spans tens of thousands of dollars without a clear hiring rationale can invite scrutiny, particularly when actual offers consistently land at one end of the range.

How Pay Scale Compliance Connects to California’s Equal Pay Law

Pay scale compliance does not exist in isolation. It is closely tied to California’s Equal Pay Act. The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from paying employees different wage rates for substantially similar work based on sex, race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics, unless the employer can establish a bona fide factor justifying the difference (Lab. Code, § 1197.5 (a), (b)).

When evaluating equal pay claims, enforcement agencies and courts look beyond base wages alone. Compensation includes wages and other forms of remuneration, which may include bonuses, incentive pay, and equity-based compensation (Lab. Code, § 1197.5 (a)). Pay scales that are disconnected from actual hiring practices can make it far more difficult for employers to defend pay decisions under California’s equal pay law.

Ongoing Liability for Pay Decisions

Another issue California employers often underestimate is the continuing nature of pay violations. Each paycheck that reflects an unlawful pay practice may constitute a separate violation, extending potential liability over time (Lab. Code, § 1197.5 (h)). As a result, outdated or poorly supported pay scales do not simply create risk at the point of hire. They can compound exposure if they continue to influence compensation decisions.

Failure to comply with California pay scale disclosure requirements can also result in civil penalties enforced by the Labor Commissioner, with penalties assessed on a per-violation basis (Lab. Code, § 432.3 (d)).

What California Employers Should Do Now

For California employers, the takeaway is not that pay transparency is unmanageable. Rather, compliance requires intention. Job postings should reflect what the employer actually expects to pay new hires. Pay ranges should align with real hiring practices, not aspirational future growth. Employers should be able to explain how pay scales are set and why individual offers fall where they do within the range.

Hiring managers also need guidance. Many pay transparency violations occur not because HR policies are flawed, but because managers treat posted pay ranges as flexible suggestions rather than legally meaningful representations. Training managers on California pay scale requirements is one of the most effective ways to reduce risk.

The Bottom Line on California Pay Scales in 2026

California’s pay transparency laws are not designed to eliminate discretion, but they do require accountability. Employers who take a thoughtful approach to pay scales, document compensation decisions, and align job postings with actual practices are in the strongest position to comply with California law and defend their choices.

If you are unsure whether your current pay scales would withstand scrutiny in 2026, now is the time to review them. Small, proactive adjustments can prevent far more significant problems later.

The post California Pay Scale Rules in 2026 first appeared on Shaw Law Group.