2025 California Labor & Employment Updates - What You Need to Know Part 1
New legislation in 2025 focusing on Employee Rights, Public Records Act, Disability Discrimination and Wage and Hour Compliance.
Employee Rights
SB 1340 provides local governmental agencies with the authority to investigate and resolve workplace discrimination complaints under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Previously, the primary responsibility for investigating and addressing workplace discrimination claims rested with the state’s Civil Rights Department (CRD). Now, local agencies have the authority to independently investigate, mediate, and even prosecute FEHA claims, providing an additional layer of enforcement at the community level.
The legislation directs CRD to create regulations and provide training for local agencies to ensure efficiency and consistency.
By allowing local agencies to handle claims, SB 1340 makes it easier for employees to report discrimination. Instead of relying solely on the state, workers can go to their city or county for help, which may be faster and more convenient.
**********************************************************
Public Records Act
SB 1034 amended the California Public Records Act (CPRA) to provide public agencies with an additional basis to extend the time to respond to a records request by up to 14 days.
The “unusual circumstances” provision in Government Code section 7922.535 now provides that agencies may extend the time limit during a state of emergency declared by the Governor that impacts the agency’s ability to timely respond due to staffing shortages or closure of facilities where records are located.
This extension does not apply to requests for records created during and directly related to the state of emergency; although, other “unusual circumstances” under the CPRA could be invoked to extend the response date.
Disability Discrimination
Miller v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 261
In Miller v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a former employee’s lawsuit alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation.
The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable accommodation was available that would have allowed her to return to work, and that the “act of becoming disabled” was not a protected activity under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Additionally, applying for disability retirement on behalf of an employee is not a form of reasonable accommodation.
This case provides a good example of what employers should do when responding to employee claims of disability and engaging in the interactive process.
***************************************************************
Wage and Hour Compliance
Employees Have No Right to Intervene or Object to Competing PAGA Settlements
The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) authorizes any employee to file a representative lawsuit for Labor Code violations on behalf of all employees. Because of the potential for severe exposure, businesses are pressured to settle with the representative plaintiff, but the integrity of the settlement process is sometimes attacked by other employees who do not agree with the settlement.
In a new decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that non-party employees have no right to intervene and no right to object to the settlements submitted in a PAGA lawsuit, even if the non-party employee has a PAGA lawsuit of their own. Although all PAGA settlements are still subject to Court approval, the recent decision gives employers more certainty that their hard-negotiated PAGA settlements can be approved free from 11th hour interventions from random non-party employees.
Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664.
Public Entities Are Exempt from PAGA Lawsuits
Previously, it has been unclear whether the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) applies to California’s public entities. In Stone v. Alameda Health System, the California Supreme Court swiftly and definitively ruled that public employers are completely exempt from all claims under PAGA. The Stone decision benefits a wide variety of qualifying public entities and is not limited to cities, counties, or other subdivisions.
Public employers should remain wary that they are still required to comply with some provisions of the Labor Code and Wage Orders and could potentially be subject to a class action lawsuit, even if they remain immune from a PAGA lawsuit.
Stone v. Alameda Health System (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1040.
Court Permits Good Faith Defenses to Wage Statement Violations
Labor Code section 226, which requires companies to provide employees with accurate wage statements, provides the basis for countless class action lawsuits against private employers. In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court provided employers with a robust new defense. Wage statement penalties are now precluded if the employer had an objectively reasonable, good-faith belief that it provided employees with accurate wage statements.
Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Service, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1056.
California Supreme Court Clarifies Outer Limits of Pre-Shift and Post-Shift Working Time, Clarifies Meal Period Off-Duty Requirements
Employers in California must pay workers for all hours worked down to the minute, but the question of when work truly starts and ends can be murky. The California Supreme Court attempted to shine some additional light on this topic in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, which featured four major rulings:
- Merely appearing at a front gate to present an identification badge and access the worksite does not constitute compensable working time if this action is a “practical necessity of accessing the worksite” and not for another work-related reason.
- Merely imposing workplace rules of conduct on employees during their last leg of travel on company premises en route to the actual worksite—such as rules like no speeding, smoking, or harassing on-site wildlife—will not require employers to pay for that time.
- Employers who require their employees to wait in line to undergo an exit-procedure security inspection will have to pay for that time if the procedures are extensive enough.
- Employers who prevent their employees from leaving the premises for a meal period must pay employees during that time, but only if the employees are truly prevented from engaging in an otherwise feasible personal activity.
Although the outcome is a net win for employers and provides new defenses, the decision serves to remind employers to carefully evaluate any workplace access and exit procedures as well as their meal period practices.
Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors (2024) 15 Cal.5th 908.
Disclaimer: BBK Legal Alerts are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts, facts specific to your situation, or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information herein.
