SHRM26 Sneak Peek: Proactive Compliance in California

California continues to lead the nation in shaping workplace law — and for employers, the stakes are only getting higher. At SHRM26 in Orlando, "California HR Minefields: What’s New, What’s Next, What’s Costly” will break down the latest developments in California compliance. In this session, Joe Beachboard, an attorney with Beachboard Consulting Group in Los Angeles, and Jennifer Shaw, an attorney with Shaw Law Group in Sacramento, will examine the risks organizations may be underestimating heading into 2026, from wage-and-hour compliance and leave management to documentation practices and workplace culture. Drawing on their frontline experience advising employers across the state, they will explain why “mostly compliant” is no longer enough in today’s aggressive enforcement environment and how small inconsistencies can quickly escalate into costly litigation. 

Toolkit: Complying with California Wage Payment and Hours of Work Laws

Attendees will leave with practical strategies for shifting from reactive compliance to proactive risk management in one of the country’s most complex employment law landscapes. 

The session is available to registered in-person and remote attendees. 

Beachboard and Shaw discussed their upcoming session with SHRM.  

California employment law is changing faster — and getting more expensive — than ever. From where you sit, what risks are employers most underestimating right now? 

Employers are underestimating two things: documentation and culture.

California isn’t just about having the right policies anymore. It’s about whether you can prove you applied them consistently, thoughtfully, and in real time. Wage-hour compliance, leave management, accommodations, pay transparency — those issues are expensive. But what drives verdicts into the stratosphere is the narrative: “They ignored me. They retaliated. They didn’t take me seriously.”

Too many employers are still operating reactively. They fix issues after a complaint is filed instead of building systems that prevent the complaint in the first place. That approach has to change. In California, small missteps compound quickly — especially when plaintiffs’ lawyers are skilled at turning ordinary management decisions into retaliation stories.

The biggest underestimated risk isn’t the law, it’s inconsistency.

Many organizations believe they’re “mostly compliant.” Why is that mindset especially dangerous in today’s California legal environment?

“Mostly compliant” can be a very expensive phrase in California employment law.

In this state, partial compliance generally equals noncompliance. An arbitration agreement that isn’t readable. A harassment investigation that isn’t timely. A pay practice that’s compliant in theory but poorly executed (and carelessly documented) in practice. Those gaps are exactly where plaintiffs’ lawyers live.

And the regulatory environment here is not forgiving. Agencies are more aggressive. Plaintiffs’ firms are sophisticated. Jurors expect employers to get it right — every time.

Compliance is no longer a static checklist — it’s an operating system. If it’s outdated, inconsistently applied, or misunderstood by frontline managers, it will fail under pressure.

The risk isn’t bad intent. It’s overconfidence.

With jury verdicts climbing and enforcement becoming more aggressive, what does proactive compliance actually look like for employers who want to stay out of court?

 Proactive compliance means shifting from defense to prevention.

It looks like training managers how to have hard conversations before performance issues turn into protected-activity claims. It means auditing pay practices before someone runs the math for you. It means documenting the interactive process as if a jury will read it—because one day they might.

It also means creating a culture where employees raise concerns early, and leadership actually listens.

The employers who stay out of court are not perfect. They are disciplined. They review policies annually. They track trends. They invest in investigations that are neutral and thorough. They don’t wait for a demand letter to clean things up.

In California, you don’t win by reacting better. You win by needing to react less.