An outpouring of support us going to the UAW member who received the bird from President Trump. Business Insider reports: “A Ford employee who was suspended after heckling President Donald Trump has sparked an outpouring of crowdfunding support. The GoFundMe donations, totally over $750,000 in less than 24 hours, come after the Ford line worker,…

Source

Trump was caught on camera today giving the finger to a Ford plant worker. TMZ reports: Donald Trump turned into Donald Grump during a Tuesday appearance at a Ford plant … launching into an F-bomb attack on a worker who appeared to yell ‘pedophile protector’ at the Prez. 47 toured the Ford F-150 plant at…

Source

Unions in Minnesota are making their voice heard in the wake of ICE raids that have left one American dead in the state. CBS News reports: “Faith leaders, union representatives and community members are calling for a Day of Truth and Freedom on Friday, Jan. 23 — urging all Minnesotans not to go to work,…

Source

Another update for California employers is on the horizon. In this episode of California Employment News, Weintraub Tobin attorneys Meagan Bainbridge and Nikki Mahmoudi break down SB 513, a new law that clarifies what documents must be included in an employee’s personnel file which came into effect on January 1, 2026.

Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel.

By Shelly Lurie

Everyone loves pizza. It warms our hearts, our bellies, and of course our ovens with its melty, gooey, delicious cheesiness.  The great thing about pizza is you can satisfy everyone in the family because there are so many different toppings to choose from!  Whether you enjoy a classic Plain Jane cheese pizza, a meat-lovers pizza, or a veggie covered pie, adding different toppings is so easy. I would like to argue that you can put almost anything on top of a pizza and it will taste good! And for those of us who may not be the most seasoned chefs, homemade pizza is easy and fun to make! I do suggest though that you grab a friend or two to help.

What’s even more special about this particular pizza recipe is… it can be made with ALL union-made ingredients! When you make this pizza, not only will you be satisfying your stomach, but also satisfying America’s hunger for good jobs! This is the first of a series of recipes we here at 411 will be trying that are made with almost entirely union-made products!

Source

The California Labor Commissioner published the official “California Workplace – Know Your Rights” notice (available here in English and Spanish) required under the Workplace Know Your Rights Act (SB 294).

The first mandatory distribution date is February 1, 2026.

Here are five things every California employer should understand now.

1. Distribution Rules Are Specific

Beginning February 1, 2026, employers must provide the notice:

• To all current California employees by February 1, 2026;
• To new hires at the time of hire; and
• To union representatives, where applicable.

Delivery must be made using the employer’s normal communication method—including personal delivery, email, or text message—so long as receipt can reasonably be expected within one business day.

2. Recordkeeping Requirements: Keep Proof For Three Years

Employers must keep proof of notice delivery for at least three years. This proof can include:

• Signed acknowledgment forms
• Digital read receipts or confirmation emails
• HR system logs

Strong documentation will be key if the Labor Commissioner or another enforcement agency requests verification.

For California HR teams, this is a good time to audit your employee recordkeeping process and ensure that all required workplace postings and notices are organized in one place.

3. New Educational Videos and Employer Resources

The Labor Commissioner’s Office will also release two educational videos by July 1, 2026:

1. A video for employees explaining their workplace rights.
2. A video for employers outlining compliance requirements and constitutional protections.

Employers should plan to include these videos in onboarding, annual training, or even all-hands compliance refreshers to demonstrate good-faith efforts at compliance.

For updates on when these materials become available, make sure you are subscribed to receive updates at California Employment Law Report.

4. Emergency Contact Obligations Are a Separate Compliance Deadline

SB 294 also imposes a new requirement effective March 30, 2026.

By that date, employers must allow employees to:

• Designate or update an emergency contact; and
• Indicate whether that contact should be notified if the employee is arrested or detained.

If an employee makes that request, the employer must notify the emergency contact when the employee is arrested or detained:

• At the workplace; or
• During work hours or job duties (even off-site), if the employer has actual knowledge.

This requirement will require updated forms, onboarding processes, and HR training.

5. Penalties Are Real—and Layered on Top of Other Exposure

Failure to comply with SB 294 can result in civil penalties of:

• Up to $500 per employee per day for emergency contact violations; and
• Up to $500 per employee per violation for notice-related failures.

Bottom Line for Employers

Now is the time for employers to:

• Audit communication systems for reliable, trackable distribution;
• Update onboarding documents (we generally recommend standard new hire packets);
• Prepare emergency contact procedures ahead of March 30, 2026;
• Train managers and HR teams on how these rights apply in practice; and
• Calendar February 1, 2026 as a firm compliance deadline.

California continues to raise the bar on employer documentation and transparency. Employers who prepare early will be best positioned to demonstrate good-faith compliance—and reduce litigation risk—when enforcement begins.

The post The Labor Commissioner Has Released the Official “Know Your Rights” Notice — What California Employers Need to Do Next appeared first on California Employment Law Report.

By Steven Moore and Jonathan Pearce

California employment litigation has entered a new era, marked by unprecedented jury awards, soaring punitive damages, and a plaintiff-side bar adept at leveraging venue and emotion. For employers operating in California—especially in Los Angeles County—traditional litigation defense strategies are no longer sufficient. The risk landscape has shifted, and “business as usual” is misaligned with today’s exposure realities. 

Recent verdicts illustrate this shift. In November 2024, a Los Angeles jury awarded $103 million in an age discrimination case, including $83 million in punitive damages. This outcome reflects a broader trend: jurors are increasingly willing to impose severe financial penalties when they perceive employer misconduct or a toxic workplace culture. Similar patterns have emerged in other cases in Los Angeles, such as a $32.2 million disability discrimination and retaliation verdict in November of 2025. Across Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Diego, multi-million-dollar wrongful termination, retaliation, and harassment cases are becoming existential threats to businesses, not just litigation costs. 

This surge in “nuclear” verdicts is systemic, not anecdotal. California law grants plaintiffs broad access to punitive damages, emotional distress claims, and attorneys’ fees. Jury pools are diverse and often skeptical of corporate conduct, while plaintiff attorneys have become highly skilled at narrative framing. For employers, the question is no longer if nuclear verdicts will occur, but how to strategically prevent them. 

Arbitration Agreements: The Foundation of Risk Control

The most effective way to mitigate the risk of nuclear verdicts is to avoid jury trials altogether. Well-crafted arbitration agreements, properly implemented, are a powerful risk management tool. Arbitrators rarely issue verdicts comparable to those from juries; when liability is found, awards typically reflect actual economic loss rather than excessive punishment. To maximize protection, agreements must comply with California contract law, include clear waivers of class and representative claims where permitted, and be presented transparently to both new hires and existing employees. Every enforceable arbitration agreement removes the most unpredictable variable in California litigation—a jury empowered to punish corporations. 

Motions in Limine to Narrow Inflammatory Themes

Juries are receptive to narratives of disrespect or corporate indifference. Targeted motions in limine are critical to shaping the narrative at trial by excluding irrelevant and prejudicial evidence that might otherwise compel a jury to act illogically. For example, in wrongful termination lawsuits, excluding reference to derogatory comments made by defendant employees that were not involved in the termination decision, or plaintiff’s past grievances that are unrelated to the current claim, helps focus the narrative on what is at issue for trial. By removing irrelevant themes that might enflame a jury and invite punishment, attorneys can reduce the risk of a jury incorporating the same into an assessment of damages.

Humanizing the Company at Trial

If arbitration is unavailable and a case proceeds to trial, employers must reconsider how they present themselves to juries. Traditionally, companies send polished executives from headquarters, but in Los Angeles, this approach can backfire. Juries may interpret such detachment negatively. Instead, it’s more effective to have a credible company representative who was directly involved in the case—such as a supervisor, regional HR leader, or department head—testify. This person can speak authentically about the employee and workplace interactions, acknowledge process imperfections, explain remedial steps without conceding liability, and express respect for the plaintiff. Doing so makes the company appear more relatable and compassionate. Humanizing the employer can reduce juror anger, which often drives nuclear damages. 

Emotional Distress Claims: Focus on Causation

Large non-economic awards are typically driven by emotional distress testimony. Plaintiffs often describe humiliation, depression, and trauma, supported by family and friends, leading to substantial jury awards. Defense teams should focus on causation rather than attacking the plaintiff’s character. Targeted discovery into non-workplace stressors—such as personal or financial issues—can reveal alternative sources of distress. Engaging expert witnesses and, where appropriate, pursuing formal mental health examinations can help demonstrate that emotional distress may stem from multiple life circumstances, not solely workplace conduct. Jurors respond to scientific evidence, which can significantly reduce non-economic damages.

Jury Instruction and Verdict Form Engineering

In California, parties may be required to craft joint jury instructions. While the Judicial Counsel of California offers detailed form jury instructions, plaintiffs often make subtle edits to those instructions; the purpose of which is to reframe elements of a claim to soften legal standards or otherwise suggest to the jury that it should decide a certain way. Defense counsel should carefully review proposed jury instructions to ensure that they strictly adhere to California form instructions, apply the correct legal standards, and do not include superfluous language. To craft jury instructions that reduce potential damages, attorneys should also ensure that they include all appropriate mitigating instructions, affirmative defenses, and special instructions founded in case law.

In conjunction with the jury instructions, defense counsel should use a detailed element-by-element special verdict form that explains the appropriate applicable legal standard and requires discrete findings on liability, causation, and damages. This helps to compartmentalize deliberations, increase juror accountability, and reduce momentum towards outsized damages awards.

Punitive Damages: Prepare for the Second Phase

California trials are often bifurcated, with liability and compensatory damages addressed first, followed by a separate phase for punitive damages. Employers must prepare for this second phase well in advance. Identify a financial-condition witness early, build a narrative around responsible corporate stewardship, and bring expert interpretation to the company’s financials. Importantly, seek a directed verdict on punitive damages before the issue reaches the jury, as California law requires proof of “oppression, fraud, or malice”—not mere negligence or poor management. Demonstrating good-faith investigation and policy compliance can be critical in challenging punitive claims. 

Defense Strategy: Credibility Over Combat

Juries value rationality and reasonableness over aggression. Companies that attack plaintiffs personally risk triggering resentment. Instead, emphasize written anti-harassment and EEO policies, documented investigations, consistent coaching, diversity initiatives, training programs, and supervisor accountability. When jurors believe the employer acted reasonably—even if imperfectly—they are less likely to view the case as deserving of punishment, which can dramatically reduce exposure. 

Jury Anchoring: Set the Reference Point

Jury anchoring is a powerful decision-making bias. During closing arguments, plaintiff counsel often proposes an extreme damages figure, which becomes the jury’s mental starting point. If defense counsel fails to offer an alternative, the plaintiff’s anchor dominates deliberations. Modern defense teams now provide a lower, evidence-based damages anchor, giving juries a rational reference point and reducing the gravitational pull of the plaintiff’s ask. For example, in a wrongful termination case, defense counsel may respond to an emotional distress damages figure by proffering a tangible calculation of the cost of therapy from the date of termination to the date of trial. Providing a response figure that is founded fact and reality can help recalibrate the jury’s expectations.

Conclusion: Adaptation Is Essential

The California employment litigation landscape has fundamentally changed. High-exposure cases are now routine, and juries are willing to punish employers aggressively when they perceive wrongdoing. For in-house counsel and HR leaders, avoiding nuclear outcomes requires a strategic recalibration: enforce arbitration agreements, present relatable witnesses, use expert-driven causation analysis, develop punitive damages strategies, emphasize reasonableness, and anchor damages effectively. Preparation and prevention are now essential components of corporate governance.

Hit the ground running in 2026 by reviewing our newly updated Doing Business in California guide.

You can use this guide:

• To understand the ways California employment law has changed for employers in 2026;
• To remind yourself and your team the ways that California employment law differs from federal law (and the laws in many other states);
• To train your managers, especially if they are new to California or newly elevated to a supervisory role, to understand the legal landscape and what to look out for;
• As a handy reference guide for California employment law issues; and
• As a way to spot check your policies and procedures for compliance.

Best wishes to all for a compliant 2026!

Many thanks to Sahara Pynes and Cheryl Spound for their contributions to this guide, available here.

As California employers enter 2026, one thing is clear: PAGA risk is not going away—and it is not plateauing.

The numbers tell the story. Despite the highly publicized 2024 PAGA reforms, 2025 became the largest year yet for PAGA filings. That reality should reset expectations for California employers. Reform did not reduce filings—it changed how employers must defend them.

The new dividing line is no longer simply whether a violation occurred.
It is whether the employer can prove it took “all reasonable steps” to comply.

The 2026 Reality: PAGA Reform Rewards Preparation, Not Intent

The reformed PAGA statute gives employers something they never truly had before: meaningful penalty reduction for demonstrated compliance efforts.

• Employers that took reasonable steps before receiving a PAGA notice may cap penalties at 15%.
• Employers that take reasonable steps within 60 days after receiving a notice may cap penalties at 30%.

But these caps are not automatic. Courts evaluate reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances, considering:

• employer size and resources,
• the nature, severity, and duration of the alleged violations, and
• whether systems existed to prevent, detect, and correct issues.

Critically, the statute also recognizes that violations can occur even when reasonable steps are taken. That language matters—but only if employers can prove those steps with evidence.

“Reasonable Steps” Is Not a Checkbox—It’s an Evidence Standard

The statute makes clear that courts must evaluate reasonableness based on the totality of the circumstances, including:

• the size and resources of the employer,
• the nature, severity, and duration of the alleged violations, and
• whether the employer made good-faith efforts to comply.

Importantly, the law also states that the mere existence of a violation does not mean the employer failed to take reasonable steps. That language is critical. It recognizes that even compliant employers can experience errors—and shifts the focus to whether the employer had systems in place to prevent, detect, and correct problems.

What “Reasonable Steps” Must Look Like in 2026

As we start 2026, employers should think of reasonable steps as an operating system, not a compliance memo. Below is what that system should include.

1. Conduct Periodic Payroll and Wage-Hour Audits—and Act on the Results

Audits alone are not enough. What matters is what the employer does after issues are identified.

Strong examples include:

• Regular wage-hour audits focused on high-risk areas such as meal and rest periods, off-the-clock work, time rounding, regular rate calculations, premiums, and expense reimbursements.
• Exception reporting that flags patterns (missed meals, late meal breaks, frequent time edits) before they become systemic.
• A documented remediation process showing when issues were found, how they were corrected, and how recurrence was prevented.

From a PAGA perspective, an audit without documented corrective action is weak evidence. An audit paired with a remediation trail is powerful.

2. Maintain Lawful, Up-to-Date Written Policies—and Actually Use Them

Written policies matter, but only if they are current, distributed, and aligned with how the business operates.

Reasonable steps include:

• Wage-hour policies that clearly address timekeeping, meal and rest periods, premium pay, time edits, off-the-clock prohibitions, and reimbursements.
• Version control showing when policies were updated and why.
• Proof of dissemination—signed acknowledgments or digital confirmations.
• Integration of policies into onboarding and manager guidance, not just an employee handbook that sits on a shelf.

Courts and agencies look skeptically at policies that exist on paper but are ignored in practice.

3. Train Supervisors on Wage-Hour Compliance

Many PAGA claims are driven by front-line management behavior, not by payroll or back office managers. Training supervisors is a core component of the reasonable-steps analysis.

Effective training includes:

• Role-specific instruction for managers who schedule employees, approve time, or make payroll adjustments.
• Training on meal and rest period timing, time edits, off-the-clock risks, and premium pay.
• Documentation of attendance, materials used, and follow-up training when issues arise.

Training that is documented and refreshed over time carries significantly more weight than a one-time presentation years earlier.

4. Take Corrective Action When Supervisors Cause Violations

Reasonable steps also require accountability.

When audits, complaints, or data show that supervisors are contributing to violations, employers should be able to show:

• Coaching and retraining efforts,
• Escalating discipline where appropriate,
• Removal or limitation of time-edit authority for repeat offenders, and
• Compliance metrics built into management performance expectations.

This is often decisive in countering claims that violations are “systemic” or “intentional.”

5. Respond Strategically Within 60 Days of a PAGA Notice

For employers who did not already have these systems in place, the reform still provides an opportunity. Employers who take reasonable steps within 60 days after receiving a PAGA notice may still qualify for a reduced penalty cap.

A disciplined 60-day response typically includes:

• Immediate preservation and review of records tied to the alleged violations,
• A focused audit of affected locations, job classifications, and time periods,
• Prompt correction of payroll or scheduling practices,
• Targeted policy updates and supervisor retraining, and
• A clean documentation package showing what changed and when.

This window is short—and preparation before a notice is received dramatically improves outcomes.

The Takeaway for California Employers

The 2024 PAGA reforms reward employers who invest in process, documentation, and accountability. The question is no longer simply whether a violation occurred. It is whether the employer can show it acted reasonably before and after issues arose.

Employers who build their compliance systems now will be in a far stronger position when—not if—a PAGA notice arrives.

At Zaller Law Group, we help California employers build and document PAGA-ready compliance systems designed to meet the “reasonable steps” standard. If you want to reduce PAGA exposure and take advantage of the new penalty caps, now is the time to act.

The post PAGA Is Not Slowing Down: What “Reasonable Steps” Must Look Like for California Employers Heading Into 2026 appeared first on California Employment Law Report.

If you’re looking forward to a bit of New Year’s Eve partying, we’ve got you covered for any after-effects of all that reveling. There are plenty of union-made items to help you get back to yourself and face 2026 with a clear head and some pep in your step. Fill up your system, your pantry,…

Source