CALIFORNIA CASE LAW ALERT

Reverse chronological e-mail alerts prepared pro bono for the California Lawyers Association (formerly State Bar of California) Labor & Employment Law Section, unofficially since 2003 and officially since 2007, covering California, 9th Circuit and US Supreme Court decisions, and new laws signed by Governor. To subscribe, contact LaborLaw@CLA.Legal.

See prior archived alerts by clicking on "Blog" under menu. For alerts older than one year, please request under Contact tab.

Cruz v. City of Hermosa Beach (CA2/5 B343086 part. pub. 10/15/26) COVID-19 | Religious Exemption

Defendants City of Hermosa Beach (the City) and the Hermosa Beach Police Department terminated plaintiff Jonathan Cruz from his employment after they implemented a COVID-19 vaccination requirement as an employment qualification and denied his request for a religious exemption. Plaintiff sued defendants for violating the procedural provisions of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA; Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq.) and for unlawful retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; § 12900 et seq.).

Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that POBRA did not apply to plaintiff’s termination. Defendants also argued that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact as to the existence of a causal link between plaintiff’s protected activity and the adverse employment action. The trial court granted summary judgment.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred because POBRA applied to his termination and he raised triable issues of material fact that defendants had a retaliatory motive when they terminated his employment. We affirm. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that POBRA does not apply to a vaccination requirement imposed on all employees as an employment qualification.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B343086.PDF

McInerney v. Regents of the Univ. of California (CA2/2 B339467, filed 9/18/26, pub. 10/13/26) FEHA | Fair Chance Act

John “Jack” McInerney (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered against him on his claims against the Regents of the University of California through the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) brought pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), including discrimination pursuant to section 12952 (colloquially referred to as the fair chance act or FCA), retaliation pursuant to section 12940, subdivision (h), and failure to prevent retaliation pursuant to section 12940, subdivision (k). The trial court summarily adjudicated appellant’s claims for retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation. As to appellant’s claims under the FCA, the trial court ruled UCLA “properly and lawfully” followed the requirements of the statute in all ways but one: it failed to give appellant five business days to submit evidence of rehabilitation or mitigation regarding his criminal convictions. The question of whether this violation caused appellant harm was decided by jury trial. The jury decided against appellant.

Appellant appeals, arguing the trial court erred in summarily adjudicating appellant’s retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation claims; preventing the jury from considering appellant’s substantive claims under the FCA; and requiring harm beyond the mere denial of the FCA’s statutory five-day response period.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B339467.PDF

Smith v. Burbank Unified School Dist. (CA2/8 B347288 10/7/26) FEHA Religious Discrimination | COVID-19 Vaccination

Douglas Smith is a devout Christian whose faith compelled him to refuse the COVID-19 vaccination that his former employer Burbank Unified School District required of him. In response to Smith’s request for a religious exemption to the vaccine mandate, the District placed Smith on an indefinite unpaid leave of absence. Smith asked for, but the District refused to provide, masking and weekly PCR testing as a reasonable accommodation. Smith was on unpaid leave from the District for about a year before he began working at an unrelated school that had no vaccine mandate.

Smith sued the District, bringing three claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code sections 12900, et seq.: religious discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation.

The District filed a summary judgment motion, which the trial court granted. We affirm. The trial court correctly found the District met its burden of establishing unpaid leave was the only reasonable accommodation the District could offer to unvaccinated teachers that did not pose an undue burden. Undesignated statutory citations refer to the Government Code.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B347288.PDF

Anderson v. Intel Corp. Inv. (US 25-498 Oral Argument 10/6/26) ERISA

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a plan fiduciary is subject to a "[p]rudent man standard of care," which requires the fiduciary to "discharge his duties with respect to a plan" with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that a prudent person "acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use." 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a) (1)). As this Court has recognized, a court's inquiry into whether a plaintiff has adequately alleged that a fiduciary breached ERISA's duty of prudence "will necessarily be context specific" because the content of that duty "turns on 'the circumstances ... prevailing' at the time the fiduciary acts." Fifth Third Bancorp. v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409, 425 (2014) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B)). As a result, "categorical" pleading rules are "inconsistent with the context-specific inquiry that ERISA requires." Hughes v. Nw. Univ., 595 U.S.170, 173 (2022).

The question presented is: Whether, for claims predicated on fund underperformance, pleading that an ERISA fiduciary failed to use the requisite "care, skill, prudence, or diligence" under the circumstances and thus breached ERISA's duty of prudence when investing plan assets requires alleging a "meaningful benchmark."

Transcript

Audio

9th Circuit Decision

Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (CA2/8 B348844 10/5/26) EFAA | Arbitration

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA; 9 U.S.C. §§ 401–402) permits a plaintiff to invalidate an arbitration agreement, and to proceed in court, if asserting claims of sexual assault or harassment. However, when a plaintiff, as here, brings suit in court, strategically withholds a known sexual harassment claim arising from the same events pleaded in that suit, and leads the court to compel arbitration without timely asserting that claim or the EFAA by proper opposition or other appropriate mechanism, that plaintiff has relinquished the benefits of the EFAA as to both the pleaded and withheld claims. We accordingly reverse the trial court’s denial of arbitration, which it based on the EFAA, as well as several related orders.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B348844.PDF

Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (CA2/4 B344642 10/5/26) Sexual Harassment | Non-Direct Supervisor and Strict Liability

In this Fair Employment and Housing Act case, we must decide whether the strict liability or negligence standard applies to an employer when a sexual harassment claim is based on the conduct of a supervisor who is not the plaintiff’s supervisor. Plaintiff Jane Doe contends the relationship between the harassment victim and the alleged harasser is not determinative; all that is required for strict liability to apply is that the alleged harasser supervises other employees. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) contends strict liability applies only if the alleged harasser is the plaintiff’s supervisor. We conclude that where the alleged harasser is not plaintiff’s supervisor and only supervises other employees, strict liability does not apply.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B344642.PDF

Schmidt v. City of Pasadena (9th Cir. 25-488 10/5/26) PREP Act/COVID-19 Vaccination Policy

The panel affirmed (1) the district court’s dismissal of Jonathan Schmidt’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Pasadena and individually named City employees, alleging that the City’s COVID-19 safety policy requiring unvaccinated employees to complete weekly COVID testing and wear masks in shared spaces unlawfully harmed him, and (2) the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.

In August 2021, the City of Pasadena implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy for its employees that required City employees to either receive the COVID-19 vaccination by September 17, 2021, or request a medical or religious exemption from the vaccination requirement. Schmidt, a forensic specialist in the Pasadena Police Department, requested and received a religious exemption from the vaccine requirement, but was required to test and wear a mask. He contends that the defendants created a hostile work environment by revealing his unvaccinated status through the masking and testing requirements.

The panel held that the defendants have immunity from all of Schmidt’s claims under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (“PREP”) Act, which provides immunity from federal and state law claims relating to the administration of certain medical countermeasures during a declared public health emergency. The panel held the statutory requirements of PREP Act immunity were met where: (1) both the City and individual defendants qualify as “covered person[s]” under the PREP Act because both engaged in the administration of a covered countermeasure; (2) the COVID-19 testing and face masks required by the City’s policy meet the PREP Act’s requirements for being considered a “covered countermeasure”; and (3) Schmidt’s claims were “caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from” the administration of a covered countermeasure.

Clarifying the causation requirement of the PREP Act’s immunity provision, the panel wrote that the district court erred by focusing on the types of legal claims Schmidt pleads rather than the type of injury he alleges. The panel held that Schmidt’s allegations that he suffered physical, emotional, and property damage as a direct result of the City’s COVID-19 safety policies are sufficient to establish causation for PREP Act immunity.

The panel further held that Schmidt failed to allege a valid ground for reconsideration or for finding that the district court abused its discretion in managing his case.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/05/25-488.pdf

MacDonald v. OR Health and Science University (9th Cir. 24-4852 10/2/26) COVID-19 Vaccination Policy / Free Exercise / Title VII

The panel affirmed (1) the district court’s dismissal, on qualified immunity grounds, of Brittany K. MacDonald’s Free Exercise claim; and (2) the district court’s summary judgment for Oregon Health and Science University (“OHSU”) on MacDonald’s Title VII failure to accommodate claim, in her action challenging the denial of her request for a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination policy.

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 21-29 issued by Oregon Governor Kate Brown, which required all healthcare workers in Oregon’s healthcare facilities to be vaccinated against COVID-19, OHSU required all OHSU personnel to be vaccinated by October 18, 2021, unless an individual received an approved religious or medical exemption. An email notice sent to employees who had requested an exemption provided examples of beliefs that do not qualify for a religious exemption, including “[a]n objection to the vaccine on the basis of fetal cell concerns, either in the vaccines or in testing and development.”

MacDonald, who was a registered nurse at Doernbecher Children’s Hospital of OHSU, requested a religious exemption, asserting, in part, that her “beliefs regarding the sanctity of life conflict directly with any requirement to inject abortion derived cell lines into [her] body.” After her exemption request was denied, and she was terminated for failing to be vaccinated, MacDonald filed suit alleging (1) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Free Exercise claim against individuals who served on the OHSU Board of Directors and members of OHSU’s Vaccine Exception Review Committee (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”); and (2) a 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) Title VII failure to accommodate her religious beliefs claim against OHSU.

The panel held that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on MacDonald’s Free Exercise claim because the right to refuse a state-mandated vaccine by a healthcare worker who works in-person with vulnerable populations due to allegedly religious concerns about fetal cells and bodily integrity or sanctity was not clearly established at the time the Individual Defendants denied MacDonald’s religious exemption.

The panel next affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for OHSU on MacDonald’s Title VII failure to accommodate claim because OHSU demonstrated that it could not have accommodated MacDonald without undue hardship. OHSU’s evidence established that the health and safety risks posed to OHSU’s patients and employees presented a substantial hardship in the context of its business, and accommodating MacDonald would have imposed substantial operational and financial costs on OHSU.

Addressing MacDonald’s pretext arguments, the panel wrote that there is no precedent that imports a “pretext” or “discriminatory motives” analysis into the “undue hardship” failure to accommodate analysis. And even if pretext were a part of the analysis, MacDonald failed to present a triable issue of material fact establishing that OHSU’s demonstrated substantial economic and noneconomic costs in allowing MacDonald to work while unvaccinated were mere pretext.

Dissenting, Judge Tung wrote that the defendants’ conduct here plainly violated established law prohibiting the targeting of a person’s religious beliefs. The policy singled out an employee’s religious objection to abortion and the use of fetal tissue as categorically undeserving of any consideration, which is a classic case of the State targeting religious beliefs and is never permissible. Because MacDonald had a right to be free from the State’s targeting of her religious belief (against the use of aborted fetal cells) by deeming such a belief not “religious” at all and thus not worthy of consideration for an exemption, the Defendants should have been denied qualified immunity.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/02/24-4852.pdf

Washington v. Alta Loma School Dist. (CA4/1 D088028 10/2/26) Misclassification | Job Sharing Teacher Position

Public school districts may not classify a teacher as a temporary employee “unless the position in which he or she is employed is ‘a position the law defines as temporary.’ ” (Stockton Teachers Assn. CTA/NEA v. Stockton Unified School Dist. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 446, 457 (Stockton).) Education Code section 44920 permits school districts to hire and classify a teacher as a temporary employee for up to one school year to replace a teacher who “has been granted leave for a semester or a year, or is experiencing long-term illness.” (Italics added.)

Relying on section 44920, the Alta Loma School District (District) defends its classification of Melissa Washington as a temporary employee for the three consecutive years she taught at the District’s elementary school. Specifically, the District claims it hired Washington to fill in for two permanent teachers who were sharing one full-time teaching position under a voluntary job-sharing arrangement. It contends such a job-sharing arrangement constitutes “leave” under section 44920, permitting the District to classify Washington as a temporary employee and ultimately to summarily dismiss her after her third year of teaching. We disagree.

We hold the term “leave” under section 44920 means “leave of absence.” Part-time work such as a teacher’s reduction in workload due to a voluntary job-sharing arrangement does not constitute a leave of absence under section 44920 that permits the hiring and classification of his or her replacement as a temporary employee. In reaching this conclusion, we follow our Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Balen v. Peralta Junior College Dist. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 821, 826 (Balen) that temporary classifications for teachers should be strictly construed.

We thus agree with Washington that she was misclassified as a temporary employee during the entire term of her employment. Under the Education Code, Washington defaulted to the classification of a probationary employee for the first two school years, after which she became a permanent employee by operation of law for the third year. As a permanent employee, the District was not permitted to summarily dismiss Washington. The trial court erred by concluding otherwise and denying Washington’s petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085). We reverse the judgment and remand with instructions for the trial court to issue a writ of mandate directing the District to reinstate Washington as a permanent employee with the seniority date of August 2, 2019, and to hold further proceedings to determine her damages for lost compensation. In doing so, we reject the District’s argument that the doctrine of laches bars the relief we grant Washington.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D088028.PDF

2026 California Labor & Employment Bills Signed by Governor (10/1/26)

BY BILL NUMBER

AB 187 by the Committee on Budget — Employment

AB 395 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) — Holidays

AB 540 by Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael) — Civil actions and attorneys

AB 1198 by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) — Public works: prevailing wages

AB 1235 by Assemblymember Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa) — California State University: skilled and trained workforce requirement

AB 1331 by Assemblymember Sade Elhawary (D-South Los Angeles) — Workplace surveillance

AB 1381 by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) — Education-related positions: previous employment disclosures: Commission on Teacher Credentialing: unprofessional conduct

AB 1439 by Assemblymember Robert Garcia (D-Rancho Cucamonga) — Public retirement systems: development projects: labor standards

AB 1534 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) — Federal Workforce Pell Grant program: local workforce development boards: participant training requirement

AB 1544 by Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) — Court proceedings: media access

AB 1600 by Assemblymember Dr. Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno) — Disadvantaged communities: farmworker communities

AB 1619 by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia (D-Anaheim) — Public employees’ retirement: administration

AB 1656 by Assemblymember Laurie Davies (R-Laguna Niguel) — Human trafficking case continuances

AB 1697 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) — Employment contracts: stay-or-pay provisions: contract date

AB 1766 by Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) — Health curriculum framework: human trafficking and online safety

AB 1784 by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz) — Postsecondary education: nondiscrimination: pregnancy or pregnancy-related issues

AB 1803 by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) — Employment: sexual harassment training and education: anti-hate speech training

AB 1809 by Assemblymember Mike Fong (D-Alhambra) — Public contracts: school and community college districts

AB 1818 by Assemblymember Liz Ortega (D-San Leandro) — California State University: employer-employee relations: meeting and conferring

AB 1844 by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D-Downey) — Judges’ Retirement System II: beneficiaries

AB 1845 by Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) — Student safety: human trafficking

AB 1883 by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) — Workplace surveillance tools

AB 1890 by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) — County of Napa: farmworker housing: funding

AB 1904 by Assemblymember Mike A. Gipson (D-Carson) — Teachers: credentialed educator apprenticeship programs

AB 1908 by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood) — Settlement agreements: victims’ compensation funding

AB 1928 by Assemblymember Mike Fong (D-Alhambra) — Sex equity: sexual harassment complaints

AB 1950 by Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) — Civil actions: mediation

AB 1980 by Assemblymember Jessica Caloza (D-Los Angeles) — Labor: apprenticeship: Equal Representation in Construction Apprenticeships Grant Program

AB 2006 by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez (D-Ontario) — State government: office buildings: daycare centers

AB 2017 by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) — State holidays: Eid

AB 2039 by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Hollywood) — Attorneys

AB 2078 by Assemblymember Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa) — Employees: meal periods: stationary engineers

AB 2120 by Assemblymember José Luis Solache (D-Lynwood) — School district employees: merit system

AB 2129 by Assemblymember Heath Flora (R-Ripon) — State employees: compensation: firefighters

AB 2150 by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) — Emergencies: personnel: training requirements: opioid overdose reversals

AB 2155 by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) — Arbitration: validity of agreements to arbitrate

AB 2156 by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Salinas) and Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara) – Holidays: Farmworkers Day

AB 2157 by Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael) — Workforce development: Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Pilot Program: extension

AB 2179 by Assemblymember Darshana Patel (D-San Diego County) — Workplace violence: restraining orders

AB 2212 by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) — Postsecondary education: sexual harassment, harassment, intimidation, and bullying policies: student training

AB 2263 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) — Transportation Authority: employee housing: transit-oriented joint development projects

AB 2270 by Assemblymember Dr. Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno) — Low-income housing tax credit: farmworker housing

AB 2294 by Assemblymember Tri Ta (R-Westminster) — State holidays: Sylvia Mendez Day

AB 2311 by Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo (D-Santa Clarita) — Health care districts: employment

AB 2319 by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) — Personal Income tax law: corporation tax law: credits: qualified motion picture: post-production

AB 2321 by Assemblymember Liz Ortega (D-San Leandro) — Occupational safety and health: investigations

AB 2392 by Assemblymember Mike Fong (D-Alhambra) — Public postsecondary education: generative artificial intelligence systems: procurement standards: training

AB 2417 by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Hollywood) — State Teachers’ Retirement System: community colleges: part-time faculty

AB 2448 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) — Medical information: confidentiality

AB 2466 by Assemblymember Mike Fong (D-Alhambra) — Strong Workforce Program: work-based learning opportunities: regional consortia

AB 2483 by Assemblymember Sade Elhawary (D-South Los Angeles) — Wildland firefighters: Formerly Incarcerated Firefighter Certification and Employment Program

AB 2490 by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia (D-Anaheim) — Teacher credentialing: emergency career substitute teaching permit: alternative qualifications

AB 2519 by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood) — State Teachers’ Retirement System: positions subject to membership

AB 2524 by Assemblymember Mike A. Gipson (D-Carson) — Pupils: work permits: issuance

AB 2529 by Assemblymember Natasha Johnson (R-Elsinore) — Civil claims: public entities and employees: declaration

AB 2563 by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D-Downey) — Sex discrimination: scope

AB 2580 by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) — Teacher credentialing: programs of professional preparation: California State University and community college partnerships

AB 2599 by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) — Slavery: corporate disclosures

AB 2618 by Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael) — Public Utilities Commission: commissioners: employment

AB 2624 by Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda) — Privacy for immigration support services providers

AB 2634 by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Hollywood) — Workforce development: High road training partnerships: scoring preference

AB 2646 by Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) — Employment: minimum wages: agricultural workers

AB 2682 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) — Transportation network company drivers: labor relations: appeals

AB 2780 by the Committee on Public Employment and Retirement — Public employees’ retirement

SB 186 by Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review - Income taxes: film tax credits

SB 342 by Senator Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — Contractors: unlicensed work

SB 574 by Senator Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providers

SB 909 by Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-Los Angeles) — Public works

SB 947 by Senator Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton) — Employment: automated decision systems

SB 951 by Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Colton) — Employment: technological displacement: notice

SB 998 by Senator Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) — Educational equity: discrimination prevention coordinators

SB 1012 by Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-Los Angeles) — Employment of inmate

SB 1038 by Senator John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) — The Public Employees’ Retirement System

SB 1046 by Senator Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) — Occupational safety: transboundary pollution

SB 1050 by Senator Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento) — False advertising: synthetic performers

SB 1083 by Senator Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena) — Noncertificated public school employees: private school employees: egregious misconduct: statewide data system: Commission on Teacher Credentialing: adverse actions: contracts and background checks for educational services

SB 1111 by Senator Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento) — Digital replicas

SB 1129 by Senator Anna Caballero (D-Merced) — State Bar of California: community justice worker program

SB 1149 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) — Employees: bereavement leave

SB 1159 by Senator Christopher Cabaldon (D-Yolo) — Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance

SB 1227 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) — Department of Industrial Relations: apprenticeship pilot program

SB 1237 by Senator Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) — Civil Rights Department

SB 1316 by Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-Los Angeles) — Employment

SB 1330 by Senator Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) — Assault and battery: utility workers

SB 1342 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) — Criminal records: relief

SB 1394 by Senator Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) — State holidays: Cesar Chavez Day: Farmworkers Day

SB 1444 by Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement — Employment

BY SUBJECT MATTER

Apprenticeships

AB 1980 by Assemblymember Jessica Caloza (D-Los Angeles) — Labor: apprenticeship: Equal Representation in Construction Apprenticeships Grant Program

SB 1227 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) — Department of Industrial Relations: apprenticeship pilot program

Arbitration

AB 2155 by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) — Arbitration: validity of agreements to arbitrate

Artificial Intelligence

AB 2392 by Assemblymember Mike Fong (D-Alhambra) — Public postsecondary education: generative artificial intelligence systems: procurement standards: training

SB 947 by Senator Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton) — Employment: automated decision systems

SB 951 by Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Colton) — Employment: technological displacement: notice

SB 1050 by Senator Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento) — False advertising: synthetic performers

SB 1111 by Senator Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento) — Digital replicas

SB 1159 by Senator Christopher Cabaldon (D-Yolo) — Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance

Attorneys

AB 540 by Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael) — Civil actions and attorneys

AB 2039 by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Hollywood) — Attorneys

SB 574 by Senator Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providers

SB 1129 by Senator Anna Caballero (D-Merced) — State Bar of California: community justice worker program

Budget

AB 187 by the Committee on Budget — Employment

Civil Procedure

AB 1544 by Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) — Court proceedings: media access

AB 1908 by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood) — Settlement agreements: victims’ compensation funding

AB 1950 by Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) — Civil actions: mediation

AB 2529 by Assemblymember Natasha Johnson (R-Elsinore) — Civil claims: public entities and employees: declaration

Civil Rights Department

SB 1237 by Senator Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) — Civil Rights Department

Contracts

AB 1697 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) — Employment contracts: stay-or-pay provisions: contract date

Contractors

SB 342 by Senator Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — Contractors: unlicensed work

Criminal Records

SB 1342 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) — Criminal records: relief

Day Care

AB 2006 by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez (D-Ontario) — State government: office buildings: daycare centers

Discrimination

AB 2563 by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D-Downey) — Sex discrimination: scope

Education