What's New in Employment Law?

Happy Tuesday!

A few important compliance updates to keep on your radar:

• “Know Your Rights” Notice. Right on time, the California Department of Industrial Relations has published the updated “Know Your Rights” notice. Employers must provide a copy to all current employees on or before February 1, 2026, and thereafter annually and to all new hires. Because the Department may update the notice, be sure you are distributing the most current version. English and Spanish versions are available now, with additional languages forthcoming.
• 2026 IRS Mileage Rates. The IRS has released the 2026 standard mileage rates, effective January 1, 2026. The business rate increases to 72.5 cents per mile, while the rate for medical and qualifying moving purposes decreases slightly to 20.5 cents per mile. The charitable mileage rate remains 14 cents per mile, as set by statute. These rates apply to gasoline, diesel, hybrid, and electric vehicles. Employers should confirm that reimbursement policies and payroll systems reflect the updated rates.
• Reminder: New Exempt Salary Thresholds. With California’s minimum wage increasing to $16.90 per hour effective January 1, 2026, the salary basis for many white-collar exempt employees must also be adjusted. Executive, administrative, and professional exemptions generally require pay of at least twice the state minimum wage for full-time work, raising the minimum annual salary threshold to $70,304 for 2026 (up from $68,640 in 2025). Other exemptions, including the computer professional exemption, carry their own higher compensation requirements. Now is the time to audit exempt classifications and confirm that both duties and pay meet the updated standards.

And the good news? None of this requires a full policy overhaul—just a thoughtful check-in with your notices, pay practices, and classifications. A little proactive cleanup now can save a lot of headaches later. You’ve got this—and we’re here to help keep things running smoothly as 2026 gets underway.

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 “Know Your Rights” Notice and Other Tidbits first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has opened the claims process for a $21 million class settlement with Columbia University arising from allegations of antisemitic harassment and retaliation against employees.

Eligible current and former employees—including student employees—who worked at the University between October 7, 2023, and July 23, 2025, and who believe they experienced mistreatment based on Jewish faith, Jewish ancestry, or Israeli national origin, may now submit claims. The claims process began in December 2025.

Why the Settlement Matters

This settlement is a clear reminder that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which prohibits discrimination and harassment based on religion, race, ethnicity, and national origin—applies fully to all employers, including universities.

Harassment violates federal law when it is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. The EEOC’s investigation stemmed from a Commissioner’s Charge filed in June 2024 and resolved without an admission of liability. Even so, the size of the settlement underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the risks employers face when protected-class complaints are not effectively addressed.

So What?

This case reinforces a critical point: DEI is not merely cultural—it is grounded in enforceable federal civil rights law.

Employers sometimes view DEI efforts as driven by shifting public sentiment. Federal enforcement actions tell a different story. When harassment tied to religion or national origin is ignored, mishandled, or minimized, employers face real legal exposure and substantial financial risk. The EEOC continues to enforce these obligations aggressively.

HR Takeaways

• Review anti-harassment policies to ensure religion, ancestry, and national origin are clearly covered
• Confirm reporting systems are accessible and trusted, and that retaliation is expressly prohibited
• Train managers to recognize and escalate faith- and identity-based complaints
• Document investigations carefully to demonstrate compliance and consistency
• Do not assume enforcement has softened, regardless of changes in DEI rhetoric

Final Thoughts

The Columbia settlement is a reminder that inclusive workplaces are not just aspirational—they are a legal requirement. EEOC enforcement confirms that DEI remains alive, not as a slogan, but as an enforceable standard under federal law.

For employers, the takeaway is simple: strong policies, prompt investigations, and engaged leadership remain essential risk-management tools.

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 Columbia University Antisemitism Settlement: DEI is Alive first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Many employers assume that initiating a workplace investigation after a complaint is inherently neutral and protective. A recent Tenth Circuit decision—Byrnes v. St. Catherine Hospital—is a reminder that the way an investigation is designed and conducted can itself support a retaliation claim if it appears biased or outcome-driven.

The Underlying Facts

A physician reported alleged sexual harassment by a colleague. The hospital concluded the complaint lacked merit. Months later, it conducted a one-day investigation into alleged misconduct by the physician, which included several notable flaws:

• The physician was never interviewed, which was contrary to the hospital’s investigation procedures
• No nurses were interviewed, even though “nurse concerns” were cited
• Investigators relied on selective accounts without testing contrary evidence

Senior decision-makers accepted the investigation’s conclusions without independent review or giving the physician an opportunity to respond, ultimately recommending termination and referral to the state licensing board. Although the district court granted summary judgment for the employer, the Tenth Circuit reversed, allowing the physician to proceed on two retaliation theories.

Retaliation Can Arise From Process—Not Just Outcome

Federal anti-retaliation laws broadly protect employees who engage in protected activity, such as reporting harassment or discrimination.

The court did not hold that the investigation itself was a “materially adverse action.” Instead, it focused on whether the manner of the investigation reflected retaliatory animus and served as the causal link to the adverse employment actions. Under a “cat’s paw” theory, an employer may be liable where biased investigators influence decision-makers who rely on tainted findings without independent vetting.

Here, skipped interviews, selective fact-gathering, and unquestioned reliance on the investigation’s conclusions were enough for a jury to infer retaliation.

The court also allowed a second retaliation claim to proceed based on the hospital’s referral to the licensing board. Although the employer pointed to an outside peer review process, the court emphasized that the hospital controlled which matters were referred and how findings were handled. Evidence of differential treatment and lack of opportunity to respond supported a potential retaliatory motive.

Key Employer Takeaways

• Investigations remain essential. A good-faith investigation is a normal and expected response to complaints—and is not retaliation by itself.
• Process matters. One-sided investigations, departures from established procedures, or selective evidence-gathering can be used to show retaliatory intent.
• Consistency and documentation are critical. Align investigations and outcomes with policy and past practice, and document the full process.

Bottom line: Train internal investigators on best practices, and when an external investigator is needed, choose carefully. A flawed process can undo even well-intentioned decisions.

To learn more about conducting effective internal investigations, don’t miss our three-day intensive workshop coming up soon!  Register here!  (Space is limited.)

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 Workplace Investigations: Why Process Matters first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

Several employment cases currently working their way through the appellate courts are poised for California Supreme Court review in 2026. These cases do not just clarify narrow disputes—they have the potential to reshape everyday HR practices, from timekeeping and onboarding to arbitration strategy and PAGA exposure.

Below are three cases HR teams should closely monitor, with a focus on the specific legal questions now positioned for review by the California Supreme Court.

Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

In Camp, an employee sued for unpaid wages, challenging the employer’s quarter-hour rounding policy. The employer’s timekeeping system tracked employee work time to the exact minute, but the rounding policy resulted in some lost compensable time.

In allowing the employee’s claims to proceed, the Court of Appeal questioned whether traditional rounding policies remain lawful when employers already capture precise time data. The court expressed skepticism about the continued validity of older cases approving “neutral” rounding policies and suggested those precedents may no longer be controlling.

The Supreme Court will decide whether California employers may continue to use rounding policies when they track time to the minute, or instead pay for actual time worked regardless of rounding neutrality.

The Court of Appeal’s decision signals that rounding policies—long considered acceptable—may be on shaky ground. If the Supreme Court agrees, employers could face widespread exposure for practices that were once standard.

Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc.

In Fuentes, an employee argued that an arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it was printed in extremely small font and difficult to read. The trial court agreed and denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and held that font size and readability issues relate only to procedural unconscionability. Standing alone, those issues cannot establish substantive unconscionability or justify refusing to enforce an arbitration agreement.

The Supreme Court will decide whether procedural flaws in arbitration agreements—such as font size, formatting, or presentation—should factor into determining enforceability, and whether such flaws can invalidate an agreement absent substantive unfairness.

Although the Court of Appeal’s ruling favors employers, the Supreme Court could refine the standards governing arbitration agreement enforceability.

Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.

In Leeper, an employee filed a lawsuit asserting only representative PAGA claims and expressly disclaimed any individual PAGA claim. The trial court denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual claim by operation of law, even if the employee does not plead one. Because the individual claim existed, that claim had to be compelled to arbitration under the parties’ agreement, and the representative PAGA claims were put on hold pending the completion of arbitration.

The Supreme Court will decide whether an employee can avoid arbitration by pleading only representative PAGA claims, or whether individual PAGA claims are legally unavoidable and must be arbitrated when an agreement exists.

 ***

These cases reflect a broader trend: California courts are reassessing long-standing employment practices in light of modern technology, procedural fairness, and enforcement realities. So, practices historically considered “compliant” may not remain so.

Yet another reason to join our last “Annual Employment Law Update 2026” webinar in January. Register here! Space is limited.

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 2026 Court Cases HR Should Watch first appeared on Shaw Law Group.

      

California continues to expand employee access to personnel records—and SB 513 is the next change for which HR teams must prepare. 

Effective January 1, 2026, SB 513 amends Labor Code section 1198.5 by expanding what documents qualify as a “personnel record” to which current and former employees have the right to inspect and copy. If your organization maintains training or education records (and most do), HR will need to ensure those records are complete, accurate, and inspection-ready.

This law is less about creating new documents and more about cleaning up and standardizing your current procedures. 

What SB 513 Changes — In Plain English

Traditionally, responses to personnel file requests focus on documents tied to work performance, discipline, and grievances. SB 513 expressly adds education and training records to the definition of personnel records if the employer maintains them.

For HR, the new category may include:

• Training certificates
• Internal or external course completion records
• Vendor-provided training documentation
• Skill or competency tracking records
• Certifications related to job duties

If HR keeps these records—even informally—they are now clearly subject to inspection and copying rights.

What HR Must Include in Training Records

SB 513 doesn’t just expand access; it also sets expectations for what training and education records must contain if they exist.

Those records should identify:

• The employee’s full name
• The training provider (internal or external)
• The date of the training
• The duration of the training
• Core competencies or skills covered (including equipment or software)
• Any certification or qualification earned

If these elements are missing, HR may find itself scrambling when a personnel file request comes in. 

Keep in mind, SB 513 does not require employers to create training records they do not already maintain. However, if you keep them, you must meet the statutory standard.

Personnel File Requests: Same Rules, Higher Risk

SB 513 does not change the process for responding to personnel-file requests, but it raises the compliance risk if records are incomplete or inconsistent.

HR should remember:

• Records must be produced within 30 calendar days of a written request
• The deadline may be extended to 35 days by written agreement
• Personnel records must be retained for at least three years after separation of employment
• Employers may charge only the actual cost of copying the produced records

Training records that are scattered, incomplete, or inconsistently maintained may now delay compliance and lead to penalties.

Why SB 513 Matters to HR

Personnel file requests commonly arise:

• Before or during litigation
• After a complaint or internal investigation
• Following a termination
• When an employee believes something is “off”

Training records are frequently used to challenge:

• Whether training actually occurred
• Whether training is applied consistently
• Whether the employer can support a “we trained you” defense

SB 513 gives employees clearer access to these documents, and plaintiffs’ attorneys will absolutely use them.

Action Items

Now is the time to prepare. HR teams should:

• Audit personnel files for existing training and education records
• Standardize training documentation templates
• Confirm required elements are consistently captured
• Decide where training records will live—and where they won’t
• Train HR staff on inspection request timelines
• Coordinate with legal, compliance, and L & D teams

This is one of those laws where proactive HR housekeeping pays off.

Bottom Line

SB 513 doesn’t require more training—but it does require better documentation and cleaner personnel files.

Training records are no longer “background” documents. Starting in 2026, they are clearly within the scope of employee inspection rights and potential legal scrutiny.

Preparing now will reduce stress, minimize risk, and put HR in a defensible position when requests inevitably come in.

Join Us for Our Legal Update Sessions

SB 513 is just one of several California employment laws taking effect in 2026—and many of them directly impact HR’s day-to-day compliance responsibilities.

To help HR teams stay ahead, Shaw Law Group is hosting two additional Legal Updates, where we break down new legislation, practical compliance steps, and real-world HR risks—without the legal jargon. Register here! 

Each session is designed for HR professionals, people managers, and in-house teams who want clear guidance they can actually use—not just a summary of the statute.

We hope you’ll join us.

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 SB 513 Is Coming: What HR Needs to Fix in Personnel Files Before 2026 first appeared on Shaw Law Group.