California Minefields: What’s Changed and What’s Coming

California employers face one of the country’s most complex employment law environments and keeping up with new legislation can be as challenging as complying with it. During the SHRM26 session “California HR Minefields: What’s New, What’s Next, What’s Costly,” Joseph Beachboard, an attorney with Beachboard Consulting Group in Los Angeles, and Jennifer Shaw, founder of Shaw Law Group in Sacramento, walked attendees through the newest compliance requirements, legislation on the horizon, and the workplace issues that continue to generate some of California’s most expensive lawsuits. Throughout the session, the speakers emphasized that preparation — not panic — is the key to reducing legal risk.

New Laws Bring New Compliance Obligations

The Know Your Rights Act (SB 294) requires employers to provide employees with notice of certain legal rights should they be detained or arrested by law enforcement while performing job-related duties. Beachboard described the requirement as “a sort-of Miranda rights” for employees.

Although California has published a sample notice, Beachboard cautioned employers against assuming the state's version is the best option. “We actually recommend you use a different notice” than the guide California offers since it suggests including a lot of unnecessary information, he said, noting that employers can often meet the legal requirements with a more streamlined document. 

Shaw added a practical compliance tip, recommending employers distribute the notice alongside other mandatory workplace postings. “It’s not a bad idea to put the notice next to your required posters,” she said.

The presenters also examined AB 692, which limits when employers may require workers to repay certain employment-related expenses through stay-or-pay agreements. While employers should review these agreements carefully, Beachboard reassured attendees that many businesses will still qualify for one of the statute’s exemptions. 

“You’re going to most of the time fall within ones of these exceptions,” he said, while reminding employers that the law contains several exceptions and may require some careful mathematics to determine whether an agreement remains enforceable. 

Regardless of which exception applies, Shaw emphasized one basic requirement: “You need to get these agreements in writing.”

California’s pay transparency requirements also received attention. Under SB 642, lawmakers formally defined the term “wage scale,” reinforcing that employers cannot simply list arbitrary salary ranges in job postings. As Beachboard explained, “The estimates that you include in job postings have to be a good faith estimate of what the person’s going to earn in that job.” The clarification reinforces that employers should base posted pay ranges on realistic compensation expectations rather than overly broad figures.

Fact Sheet: State Pay Transparency Laws — What HR Needs to Know

Another documentation requirement comes from SB 513, which expands employers’ obligations to maintain training records. Shaw noted that regulators expect detailed documentation, warning attendees that “they’re very precise about what you have to show.” 

Beachboard suggested moving away from a single attendance roster and instead creating individual sign-in sheets for participants. “Make a stack of sheets about the training” and have individuals sign their own versus having a universal sheet with a list that everyone signs, he recommended.

The presenters also encouraged employers to review changes affecting California’s WARN Act notices under SB 617. Because the financial consequences for technical errors can be severe, Shaw emphasized the importance of careful compliance. “The penalties are really significant,” she said.

Specialty Credential: California Law HR

What’s Coming Next

While employers are still adapting to recently enacted legislation, Beachboard and Shaw also highlighted several developments that could reshape California employment law in the near future.

Among them is the proposed No Robo Bosses Act (SB 947), which would limit employers’ use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions. Beachboard summarized the proposal in straightforward terms: “You can’t make any decisions about people or their jobs or promotions that exclusively use automated decision systems or AI.” If enacted, the bill would require meaningful human involvement in employment decisions such as hiring, promotion, discipline, and termination.

The speakers also discussed the California Supreme Court’s pending decision in Camp v. Home Depot, which will determine whether neutral employee time-rounding policies remain lawful. Shaw predicted that employers should prepare for a significant shift. In her view, modern timekeeping technology makes rounding increasingly difficult to justify because “if you have the exact time, then you need to be paying [employees] according to the exact time.”

Small Mistakes Can Become Million-Dollar Problems

Rather than concentrating solely on defending lawsuits after they arise, Beachboard encouraged employers to build strong compliance programs designed to prevent claims altogether. “Make sure you focus on prevention and avoiding situations,” he said, noting that litigation is common in California, making proactive risk management especially valuable.

Wage and hour compliance remains one of the state’s most significant liability areas because relatively minor violations can quickly multiply. Beachboard pointed to California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) as one reason these claims become so expensive. Because the violations don’t necessarily have to be toward the individual who brought the claims, a single employee may pursue penalties on behalf of a much larger group of workers. Beachboard and Shaw noted that average PAGA settlements often range from $900,000 to $1.1 million, underscoring the financial stakes.

Toolkit: Complying with California Wage and Hour Laws

Retaliation claims present another growing source of risk. According to Beachboard, “the damages are so much higher in California,” making these cases particularly costly. Both speakers observed that employees who anticipate discipline increasingly file workplace complaints — such as workers’ compensation claims — before an employer takes action, creating the foundation for a potential retaliation claim. Their recommendation was to slow the decision-making process long enough to evaluate how the facts would appear to a judge or jury before proceeding.

Despite the lengthy list of compliance challenges, the session concluded with an encouraging message. “You can’t manage from fear,” Beachboard said. 

Shaw echoed that sentiment, emphasizing that “there are still tools that are available to you as an employer to put you in a stronger position.”