Fall has arrived, and Sacramento once again has supplied California employers with something scarier than Halloween ghouls: another round of workplace legislation. This year’s harvest includes restrictions on artificial intelligence, expanded leave rights, and steeper penalties. There is even a
For a brief moment, noncompete law was headed toward a single national rule. Then the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rule was set aside, the agency abandoned its appeals, and the map splintered. While the federal rule is gone, the policy
The California Legislature recently passed Assembly Bill 1883 (“AB 1883”), which would prohibit employers from using artificial intelligence (“AI”) workplace surveillance tools for two specific purposes: recognizing employees’ emotional states or collecting employees’ neural data.
Earlier versions of AB 1883
We invite you to review our newly-posted, September 2026 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Wilkins v. Cruise, LLC, 121 Cal. App. 5th 927 (2026)
A Cruise employee was injured while riding in one of the company’s autonomous vehicles, but he was off duty and using the ride-hailing service as a customer. He sued Cruise
Morales v. Superior Court, 122 Cal. App. 5th 239 (2026)
A former employee asserted disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation under the California Family Rights Act, and common law wrongful termination claims. The
Cluck v. GEO Secure Services, LLC, 122 Cal. App. 5th 249 (2026)
A former employee brought a putative wage-and-hour class action, and GEO sought to enforce an arbitration agreement signed during onboarding. The Court of Appeal held that the arbitration
Hickenbottom v. Medical Solutions LLC, 2026 WL 2511310 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Medical Solutions first moved to compel a travel nurse’s wage-and-hour claims under an arbitration provision in its handbook. After the trial court denied the motion because that provision
Mitchell v. Lilac Solutions, Inc., 2026 WL 2443955 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Employees sued for wrongful termination, discrimination, and sexual harassment. The employer answered, pursued extensive discovery over the course of three months, filed cross-claims, and otherwise advanced the court
Combs v. Netflix, Inc., 180 F.4th 1201 (9th Cir. 2026)
Jessica Combs alleged that from 2017 through 2021, she repeatedly complained to Netflix about a sexually charged workplace and specific incidents of harassment, that Netflix failed to correct the situation,
