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

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…

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…

CPPA Adopts Expanded Regulations

Please join us for our next virtual session to discuss the newly adopted CCPA regulations—on September 30 from 12 to 1pm Pacific. In this session, our interdisciplinary team will discuss what the new regulations cover and what companies can do now to comply.

Click here to register.

CLE will be offered.

On July 23, the White House unveiled its much-anticipated AI Action Plan. The Action Plan follows President Trump’s Executive Order 14179 of January 23 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”—which directed the development of the Action Plan within 180 days—and subsequent consultation with stakeholders to “define the priority policy actions needed to sustain and enhance America’s AI dominance, and to ensure that unnecessarily burdensome requirements do not hamper private sector AI innovation.” This update provides a summary of the Action Plan and key considerations for businesses developing or deploying AI.

The Action Plan is structured around three pillars: (I) Accelerating AI Innovation, (II) Building American AI Infrastructure, and (III) Leading in International AI Diplomacy and Security. Although, the AI Action Plan is not legally binding in itself, each pillar contains a number of policy recommendations and actions, which will subsequently need to be actioned by various government agencies and institutes.

Pillar I – Accelerating AI Innovation

Pillar I focuses on reducing the impact of regulation that may hamper AI development. To this end, the Action Plan instructs the Office of Management and Budget to “consider a state’s AI regulatory climate when making funding decisions and limit funding if the state’s AI regulatory regimes may hinder the effectiveness of that funding or award.” Pillar I emphasizes the need for workplace action that supports transition to an AI economy, citing AI literary and skill development among key workforce priorities.  The Action Plan also calls for federal- and state-led efforts to evaluate the impact of AI on the labor market. In order to promote advancements in American AI technologies, Pillar I specifically calls for investment in open-source AI models, support for the preparation of high-quality datasets for use in model training, and acceleration of the federal government’s adoption of AI.

Pillar II – Building American AI Infrastructure

Pillar II of the Action Plan includes actions aimed at strengthening the country’s AI infrastructure. The Action Plan seeks to streamline the expansion of America’s semiconductor manufacturing capabilities by removing extraneous policy requirements for CHIPS-funded semiconductor manufacturing operations.  Pillar II also focuses on the fortification of AI systems and other critical infrastructure assets against cybersecurity threats. In order to achieve these goals, the Action Plan proposes various measures to enhance cybersecurity protections such as sharing AI-security threat intelligence across critical infrastructure sectors and developing standards to facilitate the development of resilient and secure AI systems.

Continue Reading US AI Vision in Action: What Businesses Need to Know About the White House AI Action Plan

As AI adoption accelerates across workplaces, labor organizations around the world are beginning to take notice—and action. The current regulatory focus in the US centers on state-specific laws like those in California, Illinois, Colorado and New York City, but the labor implications of AI are quickly becoming a front-line issue for unions, potentially signaling a new wave of collective bargaining considerations. Similarly, in Europe the deployment of certain AI tools within the organization may trigger information, consultation, and—in some European countries—negotiation obligations. AI tools may only be introduced once the process is completed.

This marks an important inflection point for employers: engaging with employee representatives on AI strategy early can help anticipate employee concerns and reduce friction as new technologies are adopted. Here, we explore how AI is emerging as a key topic in labor relations in the US and Europe and offer practical guidance for employers navigating the evolving intersection of AI, employment law, and collective engagement.

Efforts in the US to Regulate AI’s Impact on Workers

There is no specific US federal law regulating AI in the workplace. An emerging patchwork of state and local legislation (e.g. in Colorado, Illinois and New York City) address the potential for bias and discrimination in AI-based tools—but do not focus on preventing displacement of employees. In March, New York became the first state to require businesses to disclose AI-related mass layoffs, indicating a growing expectation that employers are transparent about AI’s impact on workers.[1]

Some unions have begun negotiating their own safeguards to address growing concerns about the impact that AI may have on union jobs. For example, in 2023, the Las Vegas Culinary Workers negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with major casinos requiring that the union be provided advance notice, and the opportunity to bargain over, AI implementation. The CBA also provides workers displaced by AI with severance pay, continued benefits, and recall rights.

Similarly, in 2023 both the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) negotiated agreements with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) that include safeguards against AI reducing or replacing writers and actors. WGA’s contract requires studios to meet semi-annually with the union to discuss current and future uses of generative AI—giving writers a formal channel to influence how AI is deployed in their industry. The SAG-AFTRA contract requires consent and compensation for use of digital replicas powered by AI.

Continue Reading Navigating Labor’s Response to AI: Proactive Strategies for Multinational Employers Across the Atlantic

With nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies mandating formal return-to-work policies, employers may face challenges in enforcing RTO practices. Multinational employers should be aware of five key considerations and practical solutions to avoid potential roadblocks.

Click here to continue reading this article.

Original article published in Law360.

Shortly after taking office, President Trump rescinded Biden’s Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Biden’s Executive Order sought to regulate the development, deployment, and governance of artificial intelligence within the US, identifying security, privacy and discrimination as particular areas of concern. Trump signed his own executive order titled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” directing his advisers to coordinate with the heads of federal agencies and departments, among others, to develop an “action plan” to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance” within 180 days.

While we wait to see if and how the federal government intends to combat potential algorithmic discrimination and bias in artificial intelligence platforms and systems, a patchwork of state and local laws is emerging. Colorado’s AI Act will soon require developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to protect against algorithmic discrimination. Similarly, New York City’s Local Law 144 imposes strict requirements on employers that use automated employment decision tools, and Illinois’ H.B. 3773 prohibits employers from using AI to engage in unlawful discrimination in recruitment and other employment decisions and requires employers to notify applicants and employees of the use of AI in employment decisions. While well-intentioned, these regulations come with substantial new, and sometimes vague, obligations for covered employers.

California is likely to add to the patchwork of AI regulation in 2025 in two significant ways. First, California Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair of the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, plans to reintroduce a bill to protect against algorithmic discrimination by imposing extensive risk mitigation measures on covered entities. Second, the California Privacy Protection Agency’s ongoing rulemaking under the California Consumer Privacy Act will likely result in regulations restricting the use of automated decision-making technology by imposing requirements to mitigate algorithmic discrimination.

Continue Reading Passage of Reintroduced California AI Bill Would Result In Onerous New Compliance Obligations For Covered Employers