The component is not available at this moment. Please contact the site administrator.
by James W. Ward, J.D.; Employment Law Subject Matter Expert/Legal Writer and Editor, CalChamber
In 2025, employment law changes and updates continue to be constant — and we’re only halfway through the year!
While most California laws usually take effect on the first of the year, local ordinances, regulations, court cases and other employment law developments can keep employers busy all year long.
So far this year, employers have seen several local and industry-specific minimum wage updates, reminders to complete their annual workplace violence prevention requirements, and state and federal agency actions, regulations and court decisions that impact them.
Read on for a brief recap of notable midyear 2025 employment law developments.
On July 1, 2025, California’s statewide health care worker minimum wage rates will increase for certain facilities. California has four different health care worker minimum wage schedules with rates and increases based on the type of covered facility. Two of the minimum wage rates are increasing as follows on July 1, 2025:
Fast food employers covered by California’s fast food minimum wage law should also continue to monitor any updates from California’s Fast Food Council, which can increase the minimum wage for covered fast food restaurants. The Council hasn’t set a wage increase yet, but it will likely begin to discuss the topic at future meetings.
Additionally, starting July 1, 2025, several local minimum wage rates are increasing, including:
Although Malibu usually increases its local minimum wage on July 1, the Malibu City Council approved a one-year suspension of the scheduled minimum wage increase to support businesses impacted by the Palisades Fire, so Malibu’s local minimum wage will remain $17.27 per hour.
Also, some localities will have industry-specific minimum wage increases, including:
Additionally, for the city of Los Angeles, covered hotel and airport employers who don’t offer health benefits must add an additional amount to the required hourly wages. For airport employers, this obligation begins on July 1, 2025, at a rate of $7.65 per hour with annual increases starting in 2026 tied to the California Department of Managed Healthcare’s Large Group Aggregate Rates. Covered hotel employers must pay an additional amount matching the health benefit rate already required for employers servicing the Los Angeles International Airport, but they don’t have to pay these additional amounts until July 1, 2026.
And beginning December 1, 2025, new training requirements for Los Angeles City hotel workers will take effect.
Lastly, Los Angeles County’s new Fair Workweek ordinance will go into effect on July 1 and creates new responsibilities for covered employers and protections for covered employees. These include but are not limited to:
On July 1, 2024, California’s general industry workplace violence prevention standards went into effect, requiring employers to create and maintain a comprehensive workplace violence prevention plan and train their employees about the plan, amongst other requirements.
Though businesses may have already established their plan and trained employees in 2024, employers have annual workplace violence prevention requirements they must satisfy in 2025, including reviewing their workplace violence prevention plan’s effectiveness, making modifications, if necessary, and training their employees on the law’s requirements and their plan.
When reviewing their plans, employers should review all procedures included in their plan to determine their effectiveness; that includes reviewing any procedures that didn’t get used in real-life circumstances to determine if they would still be effective if needed. During the review process, employers must obtain the active involvement of their employees.
Employers should also consider conducting a hazard inspection, as they did when they first established their plan. This may help to identify new or additional workplace violence hazards resulting from workplace changes since the last inspection.
At least annually, employers must train their employees on California’s workplace violence prevention law and their specific workplace violence prevention plan. Employers should conduct their annual training after reviewing their plan as described above and making any necessary adjustments. Employers who trained their employees in 2024 will need to train them again in 2025.
As previously reported, one new law that took effect in January expanded and revised California’s victim’s leave and accommodation requirements. Most requirements took effect on January 1, 2025; however, the law contains a notice provision that doesn’t go into effect until the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) creates and publishes its model notice for employers. The CRD has until July 1, 2025, to publish the new notice — Survivors of Violence and Family Members of Victims’ Rights Leave and Accommodations — detailing employees’ protections under the law. Once published, employers must provide the notice:
Additionally, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a revised Form I-9, dated 01/20/25 and valid through May 31, 2027. While updates were minimal, they reflect statutory language changes and an updated Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Privacy Notice. Prior editions of the Form I-9 remain valid until their respective expiration dates.
The California Civil Rights Council (CRC) — the rulemaking body within the CRD — approved new regulations to address the use of “automated-decision systems” (ADS) in employment practices. While these new regulations do not expand upon any protected characteristic under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), they do expressly address employment activities using computational processes within the context of potentially discriminatory practices.
The new regulations define ADS broadly — with some exclusions — and provide examples of tasks that an ADS could perform in the employment context. Ultimately, the new regulations confirm that existing law applies to the use of ADS in employment decisions and expressly state that “[i]t is unlawful for an employer or other covered entity to use an automated-decision system or selection criteria … that discriminates against an applicant or employee or a class of applicants or employees on a basis protected by the [FEHA]”. In other words, it is unlawful to use an ADS if it results in a person or group of people being negatively impacted in hiring and employment decisions based upon a protected characteristic.
The CRC regulations have been submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for review and approval. Pending approval, they are expected to take effect on October 1, 2025.
Employers should monitor for other developments in this area as the CRC isn’t the only government entity considering this issue. The California Privacy Protection Agency that enforces the California Privacy Rights Act is considering its own “automated decision-making technology” regulations. Additionally, the California Legislature has active bills addressing the topic.
The Trump administration has made some significant changes to federal policies and priorities. Since January, we’ve seen a flurry of executive orders, agency actions and related litigation. Here’s a brief summary of developments that may impact employers.
In January, the president issued Executive Order 14173 entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” aimed at halting “illegal” diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) and accessibility policies. Among other things, the order revoked 60-year-old Executive Order 11246, which required federal contractors to engage in certain affirmative action efforts overseen by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Employers could continue complying with Executive Order 11246’s regulatory scheme for 90 days from the date of revocation. Since then, however, the OFCCP has not updated its website or otherwise provided guidance on the issue.
Employers should note that Executive Order 11246’s revocation doesn’t change contractors’ nondiscrimination obligations under generally applicable laws such as Title VII, the FEHA (for California employers) and others. Nor does it change existing federal laws with affirmative action obligations, including the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act. Federal contractors should continue monitoring developments and consult with their legal counsel on how to proceed.
President Trump’s executive orders also took aim at so-called “illegal” DEI initiatives. The orders didn’t change Title VII or any other existing federal law, yet employers were left with some uncertainty regarding what constituted “illegal” DEI.
Following the orders, however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued DEI guidance addressing the scope of Title VII and when DEI initiatives may be unlawful under the federal law, such as when an employer’s DEI initiative involves an employer taking an employment action motivated — in whole or in part — by race, sex or another protected characteristic.
In the DEI context, “unlawful segregation can include limiting membership in workplace groups, such as Employee Resource Groups, Business Resource Groups, or other employee affinity groups, to certain protected groups.” Ultimately, the EEOC’s guidance wasn’t groundbreaking as Title VII has long prohibited the types of programs and decisions the EEOC described, but it did provide some helpful examples and guideposts from which employers could review their DEI programs.
Most recently, President Trump issued Executive Order 14281 requiring federal agencies to deprioritize discrimination enforcement efforts based on the “disparate impact” theory of liability. “Disparate impact” is a theory of liability where an employer’s neutral policy has an unequal or disproportionate effect (i.e., disparate impact) on individuals based on a protected characteristic such as gender, age or race. This might include, for example, job applicant testing and education or physical requirements.
Under the order, the EEOC may refrain from initiating new litigation and potentially dismiss pending litigation based on the disparate impact theory. Though it may have a significant impact on federal enforcement, the order doesn’t change existing federal laws, California’s FEHA or judicial precedent — all of which have adopted the disparate impact theory of discrimination liability.
On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14236 revoking several of former President Joe Biden’s previous executive orders, including Executive Order 14026 setting minimum wage rates for federal contractors.
Issued in 2021, Executive Order 14026 directed federal agencies to include a clause in federal contracts requiring contractors to pay employees a minimum wage of $15 per hour and, subsequently, increasing the minimum wage annually to account for inflation. In late 2024, Executive Order 14026 was enjoined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but litigation was still pending. With the rescission of the order, however, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) will no longer defend the legal challenges or seek to enforce the order and plans to rescind the related regulations.
Executive Order 14026 impacted contracts made, renewed or extended on or after January 30, 2022. However, President Trump’s executive order does not impact Executive Order 13658, a prior federal contractor minimum wage order issued by former President Barack Obama, which set minimum wage requirements for contracts made, renewed or extended between January 1, 2015, through January 29, 2022.
Lastly, on May 1, 2025, the DOL indicated that it would reconsider its independent contractor and overtime rules, both adopted in 2024. California employers are not impacted by these changes as California’s independent contractor test and overtime requirements are stricter than the federal laws. Employers operating outside of California, however, should review these developments to ensure compliance with federal law.
Employers are also seeing some significant changes from another federal agency, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB is a five-member, quasi-judicial panel charged with issuing rulings on unfair labor practice cases brought under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which covers nearly all employers nationwide — even if they are not unionized or otherwise part of a collective bargaining agreement. The President appoints board members so it’s common to see NLRB rulings shift when the federal administration changes.
In addition to the NLRB, a General Counsel also operates independently of the NLRB and is responsible for investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practice cases, overseeing the field offices and issuing guidance on potential novel or shifting issues under the NLRA.
On February 14, 2025, General Counsel William Cowen issued a memorandum rescinding several guidance memoranda issued by the previous General Counsel under former President Biden, which took aggressive employee-friendly positions on various issues. Cowen’s recission memo signals a broad step toward a more balanced approach to the NLRA, which will be a welcome relief to employers.
Employers should monitor decisions coming from the NLRB in the future as they will impact employer policies and handbooks.
On top of statutory requirements, local ordinances, regulations and other agency actions, several important employment law court decisions have occurred so far this year.
In a recent case, a California Court of Appeal handed employers a rare win, finding nonexempt employees’ written prospective meal waivers — meaning employees signed meal waivers effective in the future — were valid and enforceable in the absence of any evidence that the waivers were coercive or unconscionable.
In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., employees brought a class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the employer failed to provide meal periods as required by Labor Code section 512 and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders 4 and 5. Under California law, employers cannot employ someone for a work period of more than five hours without providing an unpaid, off-duty meal period of at least 30 minutes, except if the total work period is no more than six hours, then the meal period “may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee.”
The employees signed written meal period waivers, and the employer argued that, in doing so, they prospectively waived all waivable meal periods. After analyzing the Labor Code, IWC Wage Orders and relevant California Supreme Court precedent, the Court of Appeal found that prospective written waivers of meal periods for shifts between five and six hours are valid under the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Orders — at least under the circumstances presented in this case, which showed no evidence of employer coercion to enter the waiver agreement and no evidence that the agreement itself was unconscionable.
In another case, a California Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether Labor Code section 2802, which requires employers to reimburse employees for work-related expenses, applies to public employers.
In Krug v. Board of Trustees of California State University, a professor was unable to access his office and pick up his computer and office equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic, so he purchased the necessary equipment to teach remotely. He requested reimbursement, but the university denied his request. The professor filed a class action complaint against them, alleging a claim for failure to reimburse business expenses under Labor Code section 2802.
Generally, if a Labor Code section does not expressly apply to public entities, they are exempt from its rule, and Labor Code section 2802 is silent on whether it applies to public employers. After a thorough analysis of the statute and legislative history, the court concluded that section 2802 doesn’t apply to public employers, and the university was not obligated to reimburse its employees for work-related expenses.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that members of a majority group claiming workplace discrimination do not need to meet a heightened evidentiary standard to establish their discrimination claims, resolving a federal circuit court split on “reverse discrimination” claims and sending the case back to the trial court.
In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS). The ODYS interviewed her for a new management position, but ultimately hired another applicant, a gay woman. Ames was subsequently demoted from her position to one that paid less, and the ODYS hired a gay man to fill her former position. Ames sued the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation.
Under Title VII, to establish a discrimination claim, plaintiffs must first establish their prima facie case by “producing enough evidence to support an inference of discriminatory motive.” This is generally easy for plaintiffs to do at the outset of a lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, along with several other circuits, however, had a rule requiring plaintiffs in a majority group to show additional “background circumstances to support the suspicion that defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
The Sixth Circuit held that Ames failed to show the additional background circumstances and ruled for the employer. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule “cannot be squared with the text of Title VII” or the Supreme Court’s precedents. The Court noted that Title VII’s text draws no distinction between majority and minority group plaintiffs — instead it focuses on individuals. So, in their decision, the Court wrote, “By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ — without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
The Supreme Court concluded that Title VII doesn’t require the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which means members of majority groups do not need to meet a heightened evidentiary standard. The Supreme Court’s ruling overruled similar cases in other Circuits that applied a heightened standard for majority group plaintiffs.
In another Title VII case addressing similar issues, the Ninth Circuit revived an employee’s discrimination claim and clarified the standard that plaintiffs need to meet to establish their prima facie case. In Lui v. DeJoy, Dawn Lui, a postmaster for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) alleged, among other things, that she was subject to a hostile work environment and demoted because of her race, gender and ethnicity.
Lui presented evidence that other employees filed complaints and grievances against her based on her race and gender, her complaints were ignored by management and that she was demoted and replaced with a less experienced white man. The district court ruled for the USPS because Lui couldn’t show that the individual that replaced her had engaged in the same or similar conduct that she was alleged to have committed and for which she was demoted and yet was treated more favorably. The Ninth Circuit, however, said a plaintiff simply must show that the adverse action occurred “under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination,” which Lui did by showing that she was replaced with someone outside of her protected class.
On May 21, 2025, a federal court in Louisiana vacated a portion of the EEOC’s Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations, which required employers to reasonably accommodate employees who choose to have an abortion.
The PWFA requires employers with at least 15 employees to “make reasonable accommodations for the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions” of a qualified employee or applicant, unless they can demonstrate the accommodation would pose an “undue hardship.”
In this case, which was originally filed in May 2024, the states of Louisiana and Mississippi and a group of four Catholic organizations challenged the EEOC’s PWFA rule, arguing that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution by including abortion as an example of a medical condition related to pregnancy, for which employers must provide reasonable accommodation.
The court concluded that the EEOC’s elective abortion accommodation requirement exceeds its statutory authority to implement the PWFA and ordered the EEOC to revise its rule and any implementing regulations and guidance in accordance with the court’s decision.
The court made it clear, however, that the order doesn’t apply to terminations of pregnancy or abortions stemming from the underlying treatment of a medical condition related to pregnancy. Additionally, both federal and state law protects the decision to have an abortion.
Lastly, the court’s order doesn’t impact other PWFA regulation provisions, all of which remain in effect.
In the second half of 2025, it’s worth looking ahead at some of the future labor and employment laws the California Legislature is currently working on.
This year, CalChamber created an Affordability Agenda that highlights proposed legislation that helps businesses and consumers by cutting costs, as well as those policies that drive costs up as Californians worry about day-to-day living expenses, and labels such bills as either Cost Cutters or Cost Drivers, respectively.
Notable pending employment-related legislation includes the following:
These bills are working their way through the legislative process and are subject to change. CalChamber will continue to provide updates as legislation develops to help ensure employers are ready when new employment laws take effect in 2026.