California

Subscribe to California via RSS

Recent developments affecting Temporary Protected Status (TPS)[1] beneficiaries have created uncertainty for employers managing work authorization and reverification obligations. In response, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has reminded employers that changes affecting TPS beneficiaries do not change employers’ existing obligations under federal and California law. The guidance underscores a key compliance point: employers should not assume that an employee whose TPS designation has been affected is no longer authorized to work, and employers must continue to follow standard I-9, reverification, anti-discrimination, and anti-retaliation requirements.

The guidance reflects California’s longstanding approach of reinforcing workplace protections for immigrant workers during periods of federal immigration policy change. While TPS-related developments may create uncertainty for employers, the Attorney General’s message is that employers should continue to follow existing verification and reverification rules rather than impose additional requirements or take adverse action based on assumptions regarding an employee’s immigration status. The guidance further encourages employers to consult immigration counsel before acting based on an employee’s TPS status, recognizing that affected employees may remain authorized to work through another immigration status, a pending application, or another provision of law.

Among other things, the guidance reminds employers:

  • To follow current employment verification requirements. Employers must complete the Form I-9 to verify an employee’s identity and authorization to work in the United States and should monitor USCIS and E-Verify for current TPS termination and work authorization expiration dates.
  • That employment authorization may remain valid beyond the expiration date shown on a work permit. Employers should not rely solely on the expiration date printed on an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). Work authorization may be automatically extended through a Federal Register notice, USCIS notice, court order, or applicable DHS regulations. Before acting based on an apparent expiration date, employers should confirm whether an automatic extension or another basis for continued work authorization applies.
Continue Reading California Reminds Employers: TPS Changes Do Not Alter Workplace Obligations

Federal EEO-1 reporting may be heading for a major reset — but employers should be careful not to mistake federal uncertainty for a broader retreat from workforce pay-data obligations. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has proposed rescinding the long-standing annual EEO workforce demographic reporting rules, including the EEO-1 Component 1 report filed by many private employers and federal contractors. At the same time, several states and localities are moving in the opposite direction, adopting or expanding pay-data and demographic reporting requirements that are more granular, more jurisdiction-specific, and less dependent on the federal framework.

For multinational and multistate employers, the practical message is straightforward: do not dismantle EEO-1 data infrastructure yet. Instead, use this moment to rationalize workforce data governance, build flexibility for diverging state requirements, and ensure demographic and pay data are collected, stored, analyzed, and used in a legally defensible way.

EEO-1 Requirements

The EEO-1 framework has been part of the US employment law compliance architecture for decades. Historically, the EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) have jointly administered the EEO-1 Component 1 Data Collection program to monitor compliance with federal civil rights laws. Private employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal contractors with 50 or more employees have been required to file annual workforce demographic reports.

Component 1 requires covered employers to report headcount data disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, and job category. The Biden administration’s proposed rule to reinstate Component 2 pay data reporting — which required employers to report aggregate compensation and hours-worked data segmented by race, sex, and job category — was formally withdrawn following the change in administration and is not currently required.

What’s Changing at a Federal Level

On July 23, 2026, the EEOC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would rescind annual EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and EEO-6 workforce demographic reporting and related recordkeeping rules. If finalized as proposed, covered private sector employers — including covered federal contractors — would no longer file routine EEO-1 reports with the EEOC. Until the EEOC issues a final rule, existing federal reporting and recordkeeping requirements remain in effect.

For federal contractors, the status of EEO-1 reporting is more complicated than for purely private-sector employers. On August 21, 2026, OFCCP published three coordinated final rules that eliminate – from a regulatory perspective – federal contractor affirmative action requirements for women and minorities and narrow contractor affirmative action requirements regarding individuals with disabilities.

Continue Reading Federal Retreat, State Expansion: The New Workforce Data Landscape for US Employers

On April 27, 2026, a federal court paused enforcement of Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 24-205), placing one of the country’s most comprehensive state AI laws on hold while lawmakers reconsider its timing and scope. The order prevents the state from initiating enforcement actions during the pendency of the litigation, effectively freezing the law just weeks before its anticipated June 30, 2026 effective date.

This development is neither a repeal nor a permanent delay. Instead, it leaves employers in a familiar position—navigating a period of legal uncertainty while continuing to operate against a rapidly evolving regulatory backdrop. Importantly, even if the Colorado law is ultimately blocked or significantly revised, employers should not view the pause as a signal to deprioritize AI governance. As discussed below, the legal and regulatory risks associated with AI in employment remain very much in force.

Background

With the statute’s effective date approaching, a leading AI developer filed suit in April seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of the Act. Shortly thereafter, the US Department of Justice intervened, arguing that aspects of the law impermissibly compel AI systems to adopt state‑defined viewpoints. The DOJ’s intervention marks the administration’s first litigation effort aimed at limiting state‑level AI regulation.

Continue Reading AI Regulation on Hold in Colorado—But Employer Risk Isn’t

On March 20, the White House published a “National AI Legislative Framework” outlining policy recommendations for Congress to develop a unified federal approach to AI legislation and regulation. While our cross‑disciplinary AI team prepared a more detailed analysis (copied below), here is the employment‑law tl;dr:

  • No immediate legal change. The framework does not impose new obligations on employers, and it does not include draft legislation or an executive order directing federal agencies. Instead, it sets out legislative recommendations for Congress, reflecting the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI statute.
  • Preemption is the through‑line. The recommendations are consistent with the administration’s December 2025 Executive Order and July 2025 AI Action Plan, and they expressly support broad federal preemption of state AI laws that impose undue burdens. At the same time, the framework contemplates carve‑outs to preserve states’ traditional police powers—such as protecting children and preventing fraud.

Takeaway for Employers

Unless and until Congress enacts federal legislation with preemptive effect, state and local AI laws remain fully in force. That matters: a growing number of jurisdictions already regulate how employers use AI in hiring, promotion, performance management, and other employment decisions—including California, Colorado, Illinois, and New York City, among others. For now, compliance remains a decidedly multi‑jurisdictional exercise.

For support developing your AI adoption strategies, including compliance with regulations outside of the US like the EU AI Act, please contact your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer.

White House Outlines AI Legislative Agenda with National AI Legislative Framework

By Brian Hengesbaugh, Justine Phillips, Lothar Determann, Keo McKenzie, Cristina Messerschmidt, Susan Eandi, Caroline Burnett, Joshua Wolkoff, Alysha Preston, Stanislav (Stan) L. Sirot, Brian Zurawski and Avi Toltzis

On March 20, 2026, the White House published a four-page document with “Legislative Recommendations” in its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the “AI Framework”). The AI Framework does not include specific draft legislation or an executive order, but instead contains recommendations for Congress, setting out the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI legislative package. The AI Framework is not legally binding either for on Congress or on private sector companies. The AI Framework, building on Executive Order 14365, outlines eight key policy areas for federal AI legislation aimed at preempting restrictive state laws and bolstering AI innovation.

Background

The AI Framework represents the latest significant step in the Trump administration’s technology agenda and is consistent with, and builds on, its past actions regarding the national AI strategy going back to the very first days of President Trump’s second term. Within the first week of returning to the presidency, President Trump revoked the Biden-era Executive Order 14110 on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence”, which he swiftly replaced with Executive Order 14179 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”. Executive Order 14179 established the national AI policy to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security,” but provided few specifics.

Continue Reading What the March 20 ‘National AI Legislative Framework’ Means for US Employers Right Now

As of January 1, 2026, California’s AB 692 drastically limits the use of “Stay-or-Pay” or Training Repayment Assistance Programs (TRAP) agreements—contracts that require employees to reimburse expenses like training or relocation upon early departure. Employers need to act now to understand the law and adjust their strategies.

Watch this episode from our Employer Rapport for…

By February 1, 2026, employers must give California employees a notice explaining their constitutional rights when interacting with law enforcement at the workplace, their immigration rights and protections, their rights to workers’ compensation benefits, their rights to organize or engaged in concerted activity, and other “new legal developments.” And by March 30, 2026, employers must…

On December 4, the New York City Council voted to override Mayor Eric Adams’ vetoes of two bills requiring annual pay reporting and pay analyses. These bills—requiring private employers to report pay data by race and gender and mandating a city-led pay equity study—are emblematic of a nationwide trend toward greater scrutiny of compensation practices.

As we dive into the new year, here’s what employers need to know about the new NYC reporting requirements, recent changes to pay data reporting requirements in California, Illinois and Massachusetts, and the upcoming EU Pay Transparency Directive.

While pay reporting laws focus on accountability and seek to enable regulatory oversight and systemic analysis of pay equity across organizations, pay transparency regulations emphasize visibility, aiming to enable applicants and employees to make informed decisions and reduce information asymmetry. A round-up of recent pay transparency developments is included.

New NYC Pay Data Reporting Requirements

New law (Int 0982-A) requires employers with 200 or more employees inclusive of full-time, part-time and temporary employees) in the city to file annual reports detailing employee race or ethnicity and gender information across certain job categories and different pay ranges. Although the pay-reporting requirements take effect immediately, employers are not required to submit information until the city creates a process for doing so, which we may not see until as late as 2028.

  • Reporting Details: The new reporting requirements are similar to requirements imposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (and similar to reporting requirements in California and Illinois). In 2017 and 2018, the EEOC previously called for employers to submit employees’ W-2 income information broken down by gender, race/ethnicity and job category (i.e., component 2 EEO-1 data), though the rules were rescinded during the first Trump administration. The new law requires the city agency overseeing this new initiative to include this component 2 EEO-1 data in the reporting requirements, but may also request additional data, such as information about employee gender identity or other demographics. Employers will not need to provide an employee’s personal information as part of the reports, but they will have the option to submit written remarks to provide explanations or context for the data in their submission. Additionally, employers may furnish data anonymously, but will required to submit a signed statement confirming that they provided accurate pay data.
Continue Reading From New York City to the European Union: Pay Equity Developments Multinational Employers Need to Know in 2026

On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order on “Ensuring A National Policy Framework For Artificial Intelligence” (the “Order”). The Order represents the Administration’s latest and most pointed attempt to stop and reverse the wave of state AI legislation that has emerged over the preceding year, which the Order asserts “creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes.” The Order raises the political stakes regarding state AI laws and creates uncertainty in the form of anticipated litigation, but does not instantly remove current or impending state AI law obligations for companies developing or deploying AI.

Continue Reading Pre-emption by Executive Order: Trump Order Moves to Block State AI Laws

As California continues to set the pace for employment law regulation, 2026 looks to be another high-speed race filled with sharp turns and new obstacles. From restrictions on repayment agreements and expanded Cal WARN notice requirements to stricter pay equity rules, and much more, California employers are entering a compliance race where every second counts.

Fast Track to 2026: A 75-Minute Must-Attend Webinar for In-House Counsel

The legal landscape impacting California employers is evolving at breakneck speed. As we race toward 2026, employers need to stay agile, informed, and ready to shift gears. This high-impact session will cover the most pressing workplace trends, risks, and regulatory changes ahead for California…