Compliance Stuff

  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 coworke r, 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 additiona...

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 wor...

California employers already adjusted to the statewide minimum wage increase to $16.90 per hour on January 1, 2026. Beginning July 1, however, several cities and local jurisdictions will increase their own minimum wage rates, creating another compliance checkpoint for employers across the state. For employers with operations in multiple locations, remote employees, or industry-specific obligations, assuming the statewide minimum wage applies can become an expensive mistake. Which Local Rates Are Increasing? Effective July 1, 2026, local minimum wages will increase in several California jurisdictions, including: Berkeley: $19.61/hour City of Los Angeles: $18.42/hour Los Angeles County (unincorporated areas): $18.47/hour Malibu: $17.91/hour Pasadena: $18.57/hour San Francisco: $19.61/hour Santa Monica: $18.47/hour Fremont: $18.05/hour Milpitas: $18.50/hour Emeryville: $20.34/hour These rates exceed the California statewide minimum wage and may apply depending on where employees perform w...

You have seen it play out. A strong employee needs flexibility. A manager wants to help. A decision gets made in the moment, practical, human, and well-intended. No one thinks twice about it. Months later, that same decision shows up in a demand letter. This pattern is common in California workplaces. Employers don’t get into trouble because they don’t care. They get into trouble because real-world decisions are made faster than the processes designed to support them. Flexibility Without Structure Picture a manager adjusting a schedule so a high performer can handle family obligations. Maybe the employee works from home a few days a week or shifts their hours. No one documents the arrangement. No one evaluates whether the change affects overtime, expense reimbursement, or internal equity. At the time, the decision feels right. Later, if the arrangement ends or other employees raise concerns, the employer has no clear record of what was agreed to or why . The story becomes inconsistent ...

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 ...

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—inter...

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 h...

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 H...