California’s legislature covered a wide array of labor and employment law topics in the 2024 legislative session. The laws discussed below were signed into law by Governor Newsom and will become effective on January 1, 2025, unless otherwise noted. This Insight includes highlights of some of the new laws affecting employers doing business in the Golden State and is not intended to cover every new California state and local employment law that was enacted this session.

And new this year, we are sharing a few notes on policies we think may be a highlight for the upcoming 2025-2026 legislative session.

A Ban on Mandatory Employer-Sponsored Meetings

To start off, the governor signed SB 399, which creates the “California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act” and prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend meetings for the purpose of communicating the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters. Of course, it’s not that simple. Employers are also prohibited from holding required meetings pertaining to “elections for political office, political parties, legislation, regulation, and the decision to join or support any political party or political or labor organization.” The inclusion of legislation and regulations as prohibited subjects is not an easy feat if you’re an employer in California doing business highly regulated by state agencies.

Privacy, Data Security, and Artificial Intelligence

Although there were over 35 artificial intelligence-related bills introduced this past session, few were signed into law.

Defining artificial intelligence. AB 2885 formally defined AI as “An engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.” It is hoped this definition will assist in achieving some commonality among the anticipated flurry of AI-related bills to come this next legislative session.

No AI use of an employee’s voice or likeness. AB 2602 makes a provision in an employment agreement unenforceable if the provision allows for the creation and use of a digital replica of the individual’s voice or likeness in place of work the individual would otherwise have performed in person.

Privacy and consumer protection was also a top priority. For example, AB 1824 amends the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to require that a business that acquires any personal information—including Human Resources data—of a consumer as part of merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, or other transaction, comply with certain opt-out directions that the consumer originally provided to the transferor (original) company. SB 1223 further amends the CCPA to expand the definition of sensitive personal information and add “neural data” as a category of personal information. The law defines “neural data” as information that is generated by measuring the activity of a consumer’s central or peripheral nervous system, and that is not inferred from nonneural information. CCPA applies to both employment-related and consumer personal information.

Discrimination

Intersectionality of characteristics is now enshrined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). SB 1137 clarifies that protected characteristics under the FEHA include any combination of otherwise protected characteristics, as well perception that a person has one or more such characteristics. This bill is declaratory of existing law and simply enshrines the intersectionality concept in the FEHA.

An amendment to the CROWN Act. AB 1815 Defines “race” to include traits associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles. This legislation removed the phrase “historically associated with race” from the coverage definition. This change may impact employers’ dress code and grooming policies, so a review of employee handbooks and policies may be in order.

Driver’s license requirements. SB 1100 amends the FEHA to prohibit employers from including a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a driver’s license unless the employer “reasonably” anticipates driving to be an essential job function that cannot be comparably performed by alternative means. A review of job descriptions across the board may be in order for 2025.

Local enforcement. Newly enacted SB 1340 permits local prosecutors to bring actions for certain employment discrimination violations. The Civil Rights Department is required to promulgate regulations governing local enforcement pursuant to this new law.

Workers’ Compensation: New Disclosures Now Required

AB 1870 expands what is required on workers' compensation posters, including a new requirement to disclose the right of employees to consult with an attorney. Failure properly to post and maintain the notice constitutes a misdemeanor, and “shall be prima facie evidence” of noninsurance by the employer.

Workplace Safety

Narcan coming soon to an office near you. AB 1976 requires CalOSHA to enact regulations mandating employers carry Narcan in their first aid kits. While the law takes effect on January 1, regulations must be enacted by 2027.

Weapons protection screening at hospitals. AB 2975 requires CalOSHA to adopt regulations requiring hospitals to implement a weapons detection screening policy. While the law takes effect on January 1, 2025, regulations must be enacted by 2027.

AB 2364 amends the Property Service Worker Protection Act by increasing the fees employers must pay for sexual violence and harassment prevention training. It also requires a new “study” to be conducted by UCLA on how to improve worker safety in the janitorial industry. Watch for follow-up legislation on this topic in the next legislative session.

Local enforcement. AB 2738 allows local prosecutors to bring actions for certain labor code violations at live entertainment venues, such as concert halls. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement has the right to intervene in any court proceedings brought pursuant to this law by a public prosecutor.

CalOSHA now covers domestic services. Historically, household domestic services were excluded from the definition of a “place of employment” and therefore CalOSHA’s jurisdiction. SB 1350 removes this exemption. CalOSHA will now have jurisdiction over household services such as home healthcare workers or attendants to people with disabilities and older adults; nannies; cooks; gardeners; and housecleaners. Generally exempt from this, however, is the situation of individuals hiring individuals to perform such services in their homes.

Flashback to 2023: Workplace Violence Restraining Orders—New Definition of Harassment Is Now in Effect!

Last year’s SB 428 made several substantive changes to an employer’s ability to obtain a restraining order on behalf of one or more employees who have been harassed. Currently, an employer is authorized to seek a restraining order to protect an employee only if the employee has suffered a “credible threat of violence.” As of January 1, 2025, the law will be expanded to permit a restraining order to be sought if an employee has suffered harassment, which in the past was only something the “harassed” individual could pursue on their own. “Harassment” for this purpose means “a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.” The course of conduct must also “be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and must actually cause substantial emotional distress.”

As of January 1, 2025, the law will be expanded to allow a collective bargaining representative to petition for a restraining order. To be eligible to petition for a restraining order, the collective bargaining representative must be the collective bargaining representative “in employment or labor matters at the employee’s workplace” for the employee for whom the restraining order is being sought.

The new law also makes reference to two specific laws that a court may take into account in determining if a requested restraining order would prohibit speech or other activities that are constitutionally or otherwise legally protected. These protections will now include speech or conduct protected under the National Labor Relations Act and Government Code section 3555 through 3559 (which generally provide certain rights to unions to communicate with employees they represent and other protected activities including employees being able to seek union leave, etc.).

More Protections for Use of Paid Sick Leave and Paid Family Leave

AB 2499 amends the FEHA to allow leave when an employee or an employee’s family member is a victim of an act of violence and expands the reasons an employee can use paid sick leave for “safe” time purposes. This law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee, such as implementation of safety measures, when an employee or an employee’s family member is a victim of an act of violence.

AB 2123 removes the provision that allowed employers to require employees to use two weeks of vacation prior to using paid family leave insurance benefits. Again, a review of employee handbooks and policies may be in order.

SB 1090 allows employees to file a claim for State Disability Insurance (SDI) and Paid Family Leave (PFL) benefits up to 30 days in advance of the first compensable day for benefits. Accordingly, the amendment allows workers to apply before anticipated leave rather than completing the process after they have begun leave.

Lastly, SB 1105 amends the Healthy Workplace, Healthy Families Act to allow agricultural employees to use their paid sick days for preventative care in order to avoid smoke, heat, or flooding conditions created by a local or state emergency. Notably, preventative care is not defined in the law.

Whistleblower Protections

AB 2299 enacts changes to the California Whistleblower Protection Act, requiring employers to display prominently a list of employees’ rights and responsibilities under the state’s whistleblower laws, including the telephone number of the whistleblower hotline. The notice must be displayed in lettering larger than size 14-point type. This amendment requires the Labor Commissioner to develop a model list of employees’ rights and responsibilities, accessible on the Labor Commissioner’s internet website, which must be included in the employer’s posting.

AB 2455 expands whistleblower protections to reports of “improper governmental activity” undertaken by contractors providing services to local governments. Previously, the standard of reporting was based on “fraud, waste or abuse,” so the new legislation opens up a wide array of additional types of reports depending on what may be deemed to constitute improper governmental activity.

Independent Contractors

SB 988 creates the Freelance Worker Protection Act to impose minimum requirements for freelance contracts, including a requirement for contract payment within a specified timeframe. This new law aims to provide greater protections to freelance workers (e.g., “independent contractors”). The FWPA imposes requirements on individuals and companies that engage freelance workers for specified “professional services.” The FWPA requires that the terms and conditions of a freelance worker’s services to a “hiring party” be in writing and include certain minimum obligations.

Child Labor

Social compliance audits. Effective January 1, 2025, AB 3234 requires employers that “voluntarily” conduct a “social compliance audit” to determine whether child labor is involved in the employer’s “operations or practices” to publish the audit findings on the company website. AB 3234 offers very little guidance on these disclosure duties. Indeed, it leaves critical compliance details unclear, including, for example, the deadline for posting reports after an audit, the jurisdictional scope of where the audits occurred, whether it applies to international operations, how long the report must remain online, and any penalties for non-compliance.

A Sneak Peek into 2025

Bill-ieve it or Not – A Bill to Limit Bills! Well, a rule, actually. Speaker Robert Rivas announced a new rule that would reduce the number of bills assemblymembers can introduce over the 2025-26 legislative session from 50 to 35. Last session, legislators introduced 1,530 bills in the state senate and 3,291 in the assembly. The new bill limit is intended to reduce the sheer number of bills dealt with each session and allow legislators to focus on the content of a smaller batch of legislation.

Artificial intelligence-related bills are already at the forefront. Senator McNerney has introduced a spot bill, SB 7, which is a placeholder to enact AI-related legislation during the legislative session. Senator Ashby has introduced SB 11 to regulate AI technology. Sen. Ashby’s bill would define various terms related to artificial intelligence and synthetic content and would clarify that use of such synthetic content would be deemed a false impersonation (e.g., a synthetic voice or likeness that a reasonable person would believe to be a genuine voice or likeness of the person depicted would be considered a false impersonation). Such impersonations would constitute both civil and criminal violations under the current wording of the bill. In addition, SB 11 would require the Judicial Council to review the impact of artificial intelligence on the introduction of evidence in court proceedings and develop any necessary rules regarding use of such evidence.

All eyes will be on the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee this session. Last session, this committee served as a virtual gatekeeper by which nearly all of last year’s AI-related bills had to pass. This committee is chaired by Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer Kahan, who for the past two years has introduced an automated decision-making tools (ADT) bill (AB 2930 in 2024, AB 331 in 2023). Assemblywoman Bauer Kahan has stated that getting her ADT bill signed into law will be a priority for 2025.

Regulations at the forefront. Expect to see a lot of activity on proposed regulations this year, as the California Civil Rights Department and the California Privacy Protection Agency have both proposed regulations pertaining to employer’s use of artificial intelligence technology and automated decision-making tools. The drafts circulating at both agencies are sure to implement substantial changes in how employers may use AI-related technology. Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute is watching both sets of regulations closely and will report on any significant developments.