California’s New Workplace AI Laws: What Employers Need to Know

California employers using artificial intelligence (AI) to help manage their workforce have new compliance deadlines ahead. Governor Gavin Newsom signed four laws addressing workplace AI and employee surveillance on September 30, 2026:

SB 947 (known as the “No Robo Bosses Act”) bars sole reliance on automated decision systems for employee discipline or termination and requires safeguards when employers primarily rely on those systems.
AB 1883 restricts AI-powered surveillance involving emotional-state analysis or neural-data collection.
AB 1331 limits surveillance in workplace bathrooms, including through tools that do not use AI.
SB 951 adds technology-displacement disclosures to certain Cal-WARN notices.

AB 1883, AB 1331, and SB 951 take effect January 1, 2027. SB 947 becomes effective then as well, but its workplace automated-decision requirements do not become operative until July 1, 2027.

For HR professionals, the first challenge is identifying where these rules apply to technology already in use. A performance management tool may raise different compliance questions from an employee tracking device. The relevant requirements depend on what each tool does and how it is used.

Avoiding the Rubber Stamp Trap in AI-Assisted Employee Separations

By Devon Mills on October 19, 2026 Posted in AI, Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention

When employers use AI tools to help decide who is selected for termination, the risk is not always an obviously flawed tool. The more practical risk is that the tool may appear objective while missing important context HR and leadership need before turning a recommendation into a final decision.

That is where the “rubber stamp” trap starts.

Most employers have heard the phrase “garbage in, garbage out” when discussing AI. But in this context, the issue is not always bad data. A tool may rely on information that is accurate, familiar, and business-relevant, yet still produce an incomplete result.

The practical takeaway is straightforward: AI-generated separation recommendations may be part of a review process. That review process is most meaningful when it tests a recommendation rather than simply approving it. Employers that rely on those recommendations without testing the inputs, outputs, and surrounding context may create avoidable risk, particularly if a neutral metric produces results that are difficult to explain or defend later.

Keeping Pace with Pay Transparency: Recent Updates and What’s Ahead for Employers

By Diana Martinez on October 14, 2026 Posted in Employee Handbooks & Policies, Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Wage & Hour

Pay transparency laws continue to expand across the United States, creating new compliance obligations for employers that post jobs, recruit candidates, set compensation ranges, or maintain pay records across multiple jurisdictions. As we have previously covered, jurisdictions across the country have continued to adopt and expand laws aimed at arming job applicants with more information and greater leverage in compensation negotiations. Recent developments in California, Maine, and Delaware underscore that pay transparency compliance is becoming more detailed, more localized, and more closely tied to broader pay equity obligations.

For employers, these laws have moved beyond simply adding a salary range to a job posting to broader obligations that impact recordkeeping, compensation review, and pay equity compliance. They increasingly require employers to document how compensation ranges are developed, train recruiters and hiring managers on salary history restrictions, preserve pay and job records, and evaluate total compensation practices. Employers should begin preparing now for new 2026 and 2027 pay transparency laws that may require updates to job posting templates, compensation review processes, record retention practices, and hiring manager training.

The compliance challenge is that these laws differ in important ways. Some apply only to larger employers, while others reach smaller employers. Some focus on job postings, while others add salary history restrictions, employee disclosure rights, or recordkeeping requirements. Multistate employers therefore should not assume that a single pay transparency policy will satisfy every jurisdiction.

This post summarizes key pay transparency developments in California, Maine, and Delaware and identifies practical steps employers can take to reduce compliance risk.

Is EEO-1 Done? What the EEOC’s Proposed Rule Means for Employers

By Andrew C. Karter on October 6, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Employment Discrimination Harassment & Retaliation

For decades, EEOC regulations have required covered private employers and certain federal contractors to file annual EEO-1 workforce reports identifying employees by job category, race/ethnicity, and sex, and to maintain related records. In July, the EEOC proposed rescinding those reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Employers should not cross EEO-1 off their compliance lists yet. Until a final rule is issued, the current obligations remain in place. Although the EEOC has not formally canceled the 2025 EEO-1 collection, it also has not opened a filing window. Employers should therefore be prepared in case the agency opens one — or a court orders it to do so. They should finalize their Q4 2025 snapshot data, confirm EEO-1 portal credentials and contact information, and refrain from purging workforce demographic records. Here is what the proposal would change, what may happen next, and how employers can prepare.

When “No” Costs Millions: Mishandling Pregnancy Accommodation Requests

By Colby Berman on September 17, 2026 Posted in Disability, Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Employment Litigation, Medical & Other Leaves

Earlier this year, a Hamilton County, Ohio, jury delivered a verdict that should command employers’ attention. The case began with what should have been a straightforward pregnancy accommodation request: an employee in a high-risk pregnancy asked to work from home after emergency surgery and a physician’s order for bed rest.

The employer denied the request because the doctor’s note lacked enough detail and an end date. When the employee returned with a more specific letter explaining that remote work was needed “to prevent further complications with her high-risk pregnancy,” the employer denied the request again and offered unpaid leave instead. Unable to lose her income and health insurance, the employee returned to the office. Two days later, she was hospitalized and delivered at 20 weeks. Her baby did not survive.

In a grim irony, the employer approved the work-from-home request the same day she went into labor — but only after an HR manager at her husband’s workplace warned that the denial appeared improper. The executive who reversed course reportedly replied, “Thank you. You just saved us a lawsuit.” It was too little, too late.

What followed was not a typical accommodation lawsuit with familiar limits and predictable remedies, but a wrongful death claim that dramatically expanded the stakes. For employers, the lesson is direct: delay, rigid process, and poor documentation can turn a routine HR decision into costly legal, operational, and reputational exposure.

The Bigger Picture: Biden-Era Precedents on the Chopping Block

By Reeya Khurana on September 1, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Labor Relations

The National Labor Relations Board’s recent decision in Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc., covered here in our latest blog on protections for aggressive bargaining proposals, was notable in its own right; however, it also marks the beginning of something larger for employers. As we previously discussed, the Board spent the past year and a half unable to overturn labor-friendly precedent because it lacked the necessary three votes. James Macy’s Senate confirmation on August 7, 2026, changes that dynamic. The Board now has a three-member Republican majority — Chairman Murphy, Member Mayer, and Member Macy — with the votes to act, a significant backlog of pending cases, and several Biden-era decisions expanding employee and union protections squarely in its sights. For a deeper discussion, listen to our Akerman Angle podcast episode on what a new Board majority could mean for employers.

The Table Is Yours: NLRB Protects Bold Bargaining as New Majority Ramps Up

By Reeya Khurana on August 31, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Labor Relations

The National Labor Relations Board’s recent decision in Inland Waters is significant for employers not only for what it says about bargaining proposals, but also for what it signals about the direction of federal labor law under the Board’s emerging management friendly majority. In Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc., 375 NLRB No. 15 (July 29, 2026), the Board held that the mere act of making a bargaining proposal at the table does not constitute an unlawful threat under Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. While the case also involved unfair labor practice findings against the employer for unlawfully discharging two employees who participated in a strike, the Board’s treatment of the bargaining-proposal issue represents a significant and favorable clarification of the law for management. The decision effectively establishes that employers retain broad latitude to propose contract language during negotiations without automatically exposing themselves to independent unfair labor practice liability based solely on the content of a proposal.

DHS Final Rule Ending Duration of Status for F, J, and I Nonimmigrants May Complicate Workforce Planning

By Michael Castiglione on July 29, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Immigration Planning & Compliance

Employers that rely on international F-1 students working under OPT or STEM OPT, J-1 exchange visitors, or foreign media personnel should take note of a significant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) final rule published on July 17, 2026, which would eliminate the longstanding “Duration of Status” (D/S) admission framework for F, J, and I nonimmigrants and replace it with fixed admission periods beginning September 15, 2026, although the final rule is subject to congressional review.

Protected Concerted Activity and the NLRA: When Employees Speak Up, Employers Should Slow Down

By Lanie Read on July 27, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Labor Relations

Many employers believe that federal labor law, such as the National Labor Relations Act, only applies to unionized workforces. In reality, most private-sector non-unionized employees are protected by the NLRA too, which means employee conversations, complaints, petitions, or other shared workplace concerns may qualify as protected activity, even when there is no union, no organizing campaign, and no collective bargaining agreement.

Missteps in responding to protected concerted activity can result in unfair labor practice allegations, scrutiny of workplace policies, and remedial obligations.

Employer-Sponsored Immigration Programs Amid Litigation: Key Developments and Planning Considerations

By Andres Urdaneta Brylkin on June 23, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Immigration Planning & Compliance

In June 2026, two federal court decisions created potential implications for employers sponsoring foreign national employees and individuals with pending immigration benefit applications. Although the cases involve different USCIS policies and arise from separate legal challenges, both have immediate operational implications and underscore the uncertainty that ongoing immigration litigation can create for employers.