The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) has released its Reporting Year (RY) 2025 Pay Data Reporting FAQ and Handbook. The statute remains familiar, but the filing mechanics this cycle are not.  CRD’s materials emphasize a prescribed file structure, add required data elements, and signal that conformity to the current-year template will be central to a successful submission.

Filings are due May 13, 2026.

Quick background

California’s pay-data program requires covered employers to report workforce counts by job category, race/ethnicity, sex, and pay band. The RY 2025 materials do not change that foundation. As we previewed, they do, however, revise the schema filers must use and add data elements that affect how records are grouped and summarized for submission.

Key changes

1. Employee groups: two added classification dimensions.

For RY 2025, CRD’s Handbook and FAQ treat employee groups as the combination of job category, race/ethnicity, sex, pay band — and now, exemption status and employment type. The practical effect is additional group splits and more granular rows, particularly where exemption status and employment type are not consistently recorded at the individual-employee level.

2. Total Annual Weeks Worked is now an item in the file.

For RY 2025, CRD requires a numeric Total Annual Weeks Worked for each employee-group row. The Handbook defines weeks worked as weeks an employee worked during the reporting year and explicitly includes weeks in which the employee was on paid leave. The upload specifications require whole-number reporting (including rounding of the group total). The Handbook does not prescribe a single, uniform approach to partial weeks; that methodological choice remains with filers and may warrant documentation.

3. Additional guidance on remote workers.

For PY 2025, instead of noting whether employees “worked remotely during the Snapshot Period” the RY 2025 guidance requires three establishment-and-group counts:

  • employees not remote;
  • employees remote within California; and
  • employees remote outside California.

The guidance also makes clear that the “remote outside California” count is reportable only for California establishments; non-California establishments are to enter zero in that field. For multi-state employers, that constraint can affect aggregation logic and establishment mapping.

4. Race/ethnicity categories incorporate OMB’s MENA change.

CRD’s 2024 FAQ language allowed employers to report Middle Eastern and North African race/ethnicity (MENA) consistent with OMB’s 2024 standards, where available; the RY 2025 Handbook updates that direction, stating employers should report MENA as a category separate from “White,” consistent with OMB’s revised standards. However, the new materials address reporting categories and classification for filing; they do not expressly require employers to modify self-identification collection processes or to resurvey workforces to capture a new category. Whether and how to collect MENA-identifying data remains an operational decision.

5. Labor-contractor scope: “usual course of business” described in operational terms.

As a helpful tool, the Handbook describes “usual course of business” using a functional lens: recurring, routine work tied to regular operations is more likely to be treated as in scope, while isolated or one-off tasks are less likely to be. The language helps frame the vendor-supplied labor analysis in broad strokes but still leaves the individualized determination up to the reporting parties.

What is unchanged (select items)

  • The statutory 100+ employee threshold remains the coverage trigger.
  • Pay-band placement continues to rely on W-2 wages (Box 5, with Box 1 fallback).
  • Sex categories remain female/male/non-binary, with self-identification framed as the preferred source.
  • Payroll employees and labor contractor workers continue to be submitted on separate reports using different templates.

Reading the Handbook defensibly

The Handbook functions primarily as an operational filing guide and upload specifications. It tightens field-level rules (including whole-number and rounding requirements) and standardizes how certain elements are presented in the file. At the same time, it does not answer every implementation question—particularly around methodological choices (such as partial weeks) and fact-specific classifications (such as certain remote-work permutations or contractor-scope edge cases). Those choices may turn on documentation and internal consistency as much as on any single “right” answer.

Bottom line

RY 2025 is less about changing underlying statutory duties and more about changing the submission structure and required fields. For practitioners, the immediate focus is understanding what the new FAQ/Handbook requires in the file and spotting where existing systems or established reporting logic may not align cleanly with the RY 2025 schema.

If you have any questions about these requirements, or for assistance preparing this year’s filing, please contact Jackson Lewis.

Unless exempt, California employers must post their annual summary of work-related injuries and illnesses in a visible and easily accessible location at each worksite from February 1 through April 30, 2026. Employers must use Cal/OSHA Form 300A for this posting.

Cal/OSHA provides guidance on how to properly complete both the Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses (Form 300) and the Annual Summary (Form 300A) on its Recordkeeping Overview page.

Recordkeeping Requirements

Cal/OSHA requires employers to record work-related fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. An injury or illness is recordable if it is work-related and results in any of the following:

  • Death;
  • Days away from work;
  • Restricted work or transfer to another job;
  • Medical treatment beyond first aid;
  • Loss of consciousness; or
  • A significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health care professional.

Electronic Submission Requirement

In addition to the posting requirements, certain employers must electronically submit Form 300, Form 301, and Form 300A data to OSHA by March 2, 2026.

The following employers must submit 300A data to OSHA:

  • Employers with 250 or more employees, unless specifically exempt under section 14300.2 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations; or
  • Employers with 20 to 249 employees in designated high-hazard industries, including Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Grocery Stores. A complete list of covered industries is available in Appendix H.

Employers in the following category must also submit information from their Cal/OSHA Form 300 Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses and Cal/OSHA Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident Report to OSHA by March 2, 2026:  

  • Employers with 100 or more employees in high-hazard industries, including Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Grocery Stores. A complete list of covered industries is available in Appendix I.

Instructions for submitting data electronically can be found on the federal OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA) website.

If you have questions about preparing your annual summary or need assistance with Cal/OSHA compliance, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

California’s annual pay data reporting submission this year is due on May 13, 2026.  Each cycle, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) typically releases updated guidance for that year’s reporting in early February. 

While we await this annual guidance, CRD has already provided preliminary templates for payroll employee and labor contractor pay data reporting and related Frequently Asked Questions.  These preliminary templates are intended to be simplified versions of the final filing templates to help employers get familiar with the format and data fields in advance of the reporting deadline.  Though neither final nor compelled by regulation, the preliminary templates reflect material changes to this year’s data collection.  

The headline: CRD adds three mandatory data fields to the pay data report:

  1. Exemption status (exempt or non‑exempt)
  2. Employment type (full‑time, part‑time, or intermittent)
  3. Total annual weeks worked (aggregated by employee group)

These fields apply across both the Payroll Employee reports and the Labor Contractor Employee reports.

In addition to receiving compensation data organized by job category, pay band, race/ethnicity, and sex, the updates further break out the submission by exemption status and employment type.

Exemption Status

Employers must classify each California employee as either “exempt” or “non‑exempt” from minimum wage and overtime requirements under California wage orders and/or the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Importantly, adding FLSA exemption status makes it part of the official pay data submission—so misclassification risk can show up in the report itself in addition to being part of record on file with the state.   This makes it imperative for employers to review and evaluate the appropriateness of role exempt/non-exempt designations prior to submission.

Employment Type

CRD requires employers to assign every employee to one of three categories:

  • Full‑time
  • Part‑time
  • Intermittent (periodic or irregular schedules)

The addition of an intermittent category moves reporting beyond the traditional full‑time/part‑time binary categories.

Expanding the reporting to include employment type allows CRD to more narrowly compare compensation among employees performing more similar work, which may permit more meaningful analysis of pay differences by race, ethnicity, and sex.

Employee Weeks Worked

Employers must now report the total number of weeks worked during the reporting year, aggregated by employee group. As with the “hours worked” reporting, “weeks worked” includes weeks on paid time off, such as vacation, sick leave, or holidays.  For labor contractor employees, this is the number of weeks worked by the labor contractor employee for the reporting employer.

Reminders

Although not new, the FAQ reiterates how employers must calculate total annual hours worked for both exempt and non‑exempt employees.

 For exempt employees, employers must use:

  • actual tracked hours, if available; or
  • a reasonable estimation based on days worked and paid time off multiplied by average daily hours.

CRD emphasizes that the 2025 templates are preliminary and may change. Final templates, instructions, and guidance will be released when the reporting portal opens in February 2026.

The preliminary templates are nonetheless instructive. They reflect how CRD expects data to be structured and the types of analyses it is preparing to perform.

Practical Preparation Steps for Employers

Employers preparing for the 2025 reporting cycle should consider the following steps now:

  • Audit exemption classifications and reconcile them with job duties and pay practices.
  • Standardize employment type definitions across establishments and apply them consistently.
  • Confirm system capability to calculate weeks worked and hours worked accurately.
  • Document methodologies used for estimating exempt employee hours.
  • Run a dry‑run analysis using the preliminary templates to identify gaps or inconsistencies.
  • Coordinate legal, HR, payroll, and data teams early in the process.

If you have questions about California pay data reporting or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

California employers must promptly update their workplace postings because the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) recently released a revised Healthy Workplaces/Healthy Families Act (HWHFA) poster reflecting recent amendments to the state paid sick leave.

In 2024, California passed a bill that amended leave rights for employees pertaining to victims’ leave and attendance at court hearings and jury duty. In 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 406, which made technical changes to the state paid sick leave statute to clarify that employees could use paid sick leave during those types of leaves.

Employees are able to use paid sick leave for the following additional reasons:

  • To serve on a jury
  • To appear in court to comply with a subpoena or other court order as a witness in a judicial proceeding
  • If the employee is a victim of a qualifying act of violence and needs to obtain relief to ensure their health, safety, or welfare, or that of their child
  • If the employee or their family member is a victim of certain types of violent or serious crimes, they need to attend judicial proceedings related to the crime or any proceeding where their rights are an issue
  • To obtain specific victim-related treatment and services (if the employee works for an employer with 25 or more employees)

The revised poster also informs employees of the basics of paid sick leave entitlement and usage, including that employees can use it for the diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition or preventive care for themselves or a family member, and that employers are prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against employees who request or use paid sick leave.

Employers should confirm that they have the current version of the poster, which is dated January 2026, displayed in a location where employees can easily see and read it.

If you have questions about the changes to paid sick leave, victims’ leave or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

A recent federal court order has placed a partial preliminary injunction on the enforcement of Assembly Bill (AB) 288, which expands both worker rights and the authority of the state’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB).

AB 288 was designed to let PERB step in and handle certain private sector labor disputes if the federal National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was unable or unwilling to do so. The law was passed in response to concerns about delays, funding issues, and even leadership vacancies at the NLRB, which some felt left workers without a way to resolve their labor complaints. Under AB 288, PERB could take over cases if, for example, the NLRB had a backlog, lacked a quorum, or was otherwise unable to act.

The NLRB challenged AB 288 in court, arguing that federal law gives it exclusive authority over most private sector labor disputes, and that California’s attempt to create a parallel process would create confusion and undermine national labor policy.

On December 26, 2025, the district court agreed in part, issuing a preliminary injunction that blocks California from enforcing the parts of AB 288 that would allow PERB to take over cases because the NLRB is experiencing delays, lacks a quorum, or is alleged to have lost its independence. The court found that these situations do not mean the NLRB has given up its authority, and allowing PERB to step in would create conflicting decisions and disrupt the uniformity that federal labor law is meant to provide.

However, the court did not block all of AB 288. California can still enforce the law in situations where the NLRB is truly out of the picture, such as when a court has specifically enjoined the NLRB from acting in a case, or when a worker is no longer covered by the National Labor Relations Act because of a change in the law or a court decision. In those limited circumstances, PERB can step in.

For employers, this means that, for now, the NLRB remains the primary authority for private sector labor disputes in California, even if the agency is facing internal challenges or delays. Employers do not need to prepare for a new, parallel state process for most cases yet. But the court’s order is only a preliminary injunction, meant to keep things as they are while the case moves forward. The outcome could still change, depending on future court rulings or legislative action. For now, though, the status quo remains: the NLRB is still in charge, and California’s new law is on hold in most respects.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor this case as it proceeds. If you have questions about AB 288 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The Labor Commissioner has published a model Workplace “Know Your Rights” Notice pursuant to Senate Bill 294 (SB 294), also known as the Workplace Know Your Rights Act. This Act introduces annual notice requirements and new rules related to employee arrests or detentions.

Beginning February 1, 2026, and every year thereafter, all California employers must provide employees with a written notice outlining certain workplace rights.

The Labor Commissioner has issued a model notice that employers may use to comply with the law, which is linked here: SB294 Know Your Right Notice. Importantly, the model notice will be updated annually, so employers should confirm they are using the most current version each year.

The notice must be provided in a language the employer normally uses to communicate with employees about business matters that employees understand. At present, the Labor Commissioner’s template is available in English and Spanish, with additional languages expected in the future.

SB 294 also imposes the new obligation that California employers notify an employee’s designated emergency contact in the event the employee is arrested or detained, either:

  • At the worksite, or
  • Offsite during work hours if the employer has actual knowledge of the arrest or detention.

To support this requirement, California employers must, by March 30, 2026, provide employees with the opportunity to indicate whether their designated emergency contact should be notified in the event of an arrest or detention.

If you have questions about SB 294’s obligations or related issues, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

As we wind down 2025, here are some of the changes California employers need to be aware of to be prepared in 2026.

State Law

California SB 596: Increases Penalties for Healthcare Staffing Ratio Violations

Senate Bill 20: California Expands Worker Protections Against Silica Dust Exposure

Senate Bill 464: California Mandates Tougher Pay Data Reporting

Senate Bill 590: California’s State Paid Family Leave Extended to Cover Leave for Designated Persons

Assembly Bill 692: California Passes Prohibition Against Workers Contracting to Repay Debts

Senate Bill 294: California Requires New Annual Notice to Employees on Rights

Senate Bill 513: California Expands Personnel File Requirements

Senate Bill 642: California Revises Its Equal Pay Act

Senate Bill 53: A Move Toward Transparency and Reporting Requirements for Large Developers of AI Models

Assembly Bill 858: COVID Right of Recall Continues in California

Assembly Bill 1340: California Gives Gig Drivers the Right to Organize

Senate Bill 303: California Sets Forth Protections for Bias Training

Assembly Bill 288: Expanded Worker Rights and PERB’s New Authority

Senate Bill 617: California Expands CalWARN Notice Requirements

Legislation Grants Authority to California Labor Commissioner to Enforce Labor Code Provisions Related to Gratuities

Local Ordinances

LA County Extends COVID Era Right of Recall Permanently

Los Angeles Hotel Worker Training Ordinance: Certified Training Providers Announced

LA County Passes Hotel Worker Protection Ordinance for Unincorporated Areas of the County

City of San Diego Increases Hospitality Minimum Wage

City of Los Angeles Hotel Workers’ Minimum Wage Increase Is Back

City of Long Beach Staffing for Self-Check Out Ordinance Takes Effect September 21

Several employment-related cases are currently pending before the California Supreme Court, and their outcomes could have a significant impact on workplace policies and risk management for employers and HR professionals.

Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc.

 This case addresses whether a form arbitration agreement required as a condition of employment is unenforceable due to unconscionability.

The California Court of Appeal held that the employee failed to establish substantive unconscionability to invalidate the arbitration agreement. The court emphasized that complaints about tiny, blurry, “visually impenetrable” font and the adhesive, take‑it‑or‑leave‑it presentation go to procedural unconscionability only and cannot be double counted as substantive defects.

If the California Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s decision in Fuentes, employers may have more confidence in the enforceability of form arbitration agreements, even when presented as take-it-or-leave-it conditions of employment, so long as complaints about the form agreements center only on procedural unconscionability and not substantive defects. However, employers should still ensure their agreements are clear and fair to reduce the risk of challenges based on unconscionability.

Hern v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

In this case, the California Supreme Court will clarify whether a terminated employee can bring a defamation claim against a former employer if the alleged defamation contributed to their termination, or if such claims must be pursued under a wrongful discharge theory.

Hearn sued for Labor Code section 1102.5 retaliation and defamation based on statements in internal administrative reports, a labor relations email seeking termination approval, and the termination letter. A jury rejected retaliation but found defamation liability solely as to an internal investigation report, concluding those statements were not substantially true and were made with malice, and awarded economic and noneconomic damages.  The Court of Appeal reversed the defamation claim holding an employee cannot obtain tort recovery where the tort is merely the means to the end of termination and the only injury results from the discharge.

If the California Supreme Court affirms the appellate court’s decision, employers may face reduced exposure to defamation claims from terminated employees when the alleged defamatory statements are closely tied to the termination itself, reinforcing the need to address such claims primarily under wrongful discharge theories rather than as separate tort actions.

Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.

This case addresses whether every Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action necessarily includes both individual and non-individual claims, and whether a plaintiff can choose to bring only a non-individual PAGA action, also known as a “headless PAGA” claim.

Leeper worked as a “shopper” for Shipt under an independent-contractor agreement that contained a broad arbitration clause governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. In 2024, she filed a PAGA action against Shipt, alleging that she and other workers were misclassified as independent contractors and denied various protections under the California Labor Code. Importantly, Leeper’s complaint expressly stated that she was bringing only non-individual, representative PAGA claims on behalf of the State of California and other employees and not pursuing any individual PAGA claim of her own. Shipt moved to compel arbitration, arguing that any “individual” component of her PAGA claim fell within the arbitration agreement. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that every PAGA action necessarily includes both an individual and a non-individual (representative) component. The court reasoned that under Labor Code section 2699(a), an “aggrieved employee” always acts “on behalf of the employee and other employees,” meaning Leeper could not avoid arbitration by disclaiming her own individual PAGA claim. Accordingly, the appellate court directed the lower court to compel arbitration of Leeper’s individual PAGA claim and stay the representative portion of the case pending the outcome of arbitration.

If the California Supreme Court upholds the appellate court’s decision in Leeper, employers may gain greater leverage in compelling arbitration of individual PAGA claims, limiting the scope of representative PAGA actions, and reducing potential exposure to broad, state-wide PAGA litigation.

If you have questions about any of these cases or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Los Angeles County has enacted a new ordinance that permanently extends and updates worker recall and retention rights for certain employees, building on protections first introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ordinance, effective November 6, 2025, amends the Los Angeles County Code to provide ongoing job security measures for workers in specific industries.

Provisions of the ordinance may only be expressly waived through a collective bargaining agreement that is unambiguous.

Covered Employers

The ordinance applies to employers operating in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County in the following sectors:

  • Commercial Property Employers: Owners, operators, managers, or lessees (including contractors and subcontractors) of non-residential properties that employ 25 or more janitorial, maintenance, or security service workers.
  • Hotel Employers: Owners, operators, or managers of hotels with 50 or more guestrooms or hotels with gross receipts exceeding $5 million in the prior fiscal year. This also includes owners or operators of restaurants located on hotel premises.

Non-profit entities and federal, state, or local government agencies are not covered by this ordinance.

Right of Recall

Employers must offer laid-off workers the opportunity to return to their former positions before hiring new employees for those roles.

The ordinance applies to workers with at least six months of service who were laid off for economic, non-disciplinary reasons on or after March 4, 2020.  The ordinance creates a rebuttable presumption that any termination occurring on or after March 2020 was due to a non-disciplinary reason.

Employers must make recall offers via mail, email, or text message, and provide workers with at least 10 business days to respond. Employers should maintain documentation of all recall offers and responses.

Right of Retention

If a covered business undergoes a change in ownership or control, the outgoing employer must provide a list of eligible workers to the new employer within 15 days of the transfer.

The new employer must use this list to offer employment to eligible workers for at least six months after reopening. Retained workers are entitled to a 90-day transition period during which they can only be discharged for cause. If fewer workers are needed, retention decisions must be based on seniority.

Offers of employment must be in writing and remain open for at least five business days.

At the end of the 90-day period, workers must receive a written performance evaluation.

The permanent worker recall and retention ordinance in Los Angeles County introduces ongoing obligations for covered employers in the hospitality, janitorial, maintenance, and security sectors. By understanding the scope of the ordinance and implementing compliant policies and procedures, employers can minimize legal risk and ensure a smooth transition as these protections become a permanent part of the local employment landscape.

If you have questions about the LA County Ordinance or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Los Angeles hospitality employers should be aware of an update regarding the Hotel Worker Training Ordinance.

The City has released its list of Certified Public Housekeeping Training Organizations (PHTOs), and beginning December 1, 2025, covered hotels must provide paid public housekeeping training through one of these approved providers. Hotels should begin preparing now to ensure compliance and avoid operational disruption.

Under the Ordinance, Hotel Employers must offer at least 5.5 hours of public housekeeping training to Room Attendants. The City has recently confirmed that the Human Trafficking component has been removed from the required curriculum, resulting in a 30-minute reduction in total training time. Despite this adjustment, the training remains comprehensive and must cover the safety, hazard recognition, cleaning, health, and worker-rights topics outlined in LAMC 182.22.C.2.

Importantly, the training must be conducted by a certified PHTO, and employers are responsible for paying both the training cost and the employee’s time spent in the program. This requirement applies to all covered Room Attendants, including part-time employees and new hires. Because only approved organizations may deliver the required course, hotels should begin coordination early to avoid scheduling bottlenecks.

The City has certified organizations that may provide the training. This list is available on the City’s website.

In addition to the training requirement, hotels should be aware that this Ordinance operates within a broader framework governing hotel worker protections in Los Angeles, which includes safety device (also known as panic buttons) obligations, workload limitations, and record-keeping requirements. Coordinating compliance across these overlapping rules can help reduce legal exposure and ensure consistent operational practices.

For employers, the next several months present an opportunity to review coverage under the Ordinance, budget for both training fees and payroll costs, evaluate scheduling impacts, and establish processes for onboarding newly hired Room Attendants. Given the anticipated demand on approved training organizations, reaching out early to schedule sessions will likely be essential.

If you have questions about the hotel worker training ordinance or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.