Firm News & Events

New Anti-Hate Speech Training Requirements

by Negin P. Roth

August 28, 2026

Question: I am a business owner and heard there are new anti-hate speech training requirements.  Is this true, and if so, when would this training take effect?

Answer: Additional training for anti-hate speech might be required if a new proposed bill (AB 1803) becomes law.  Existing law requires employers with five or more employees to provide at least two hours of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to supervisors and one hour to nonsupervisory employees every two years.  Those trainings cover topics including sexual harassment, abusive conduct, and discrimination based on protected characteristics, including gender identity and sexual orientation.

AB 1803 is a proposed law that would require employers to add anti-hate speech training as a component to their existing sexual harassment prevention training.  In other words, the anti-hate speech training would be part of the regular training, not a separate course. If passed, the new requirements would begin January 1, 2028.

The stated purpose of the bill is to reduce the prevalence of hate speech/crimes in California.  According to its proponents, it would provide practical guidance on recognizing, reporting, and confronting workplace speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred against people based on protected characteristics, including age, national origin, disability, gender, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.  AB 1803 would identifies speech and conduct based on protected characteristics as something employees should learn to recognize, rather than leaving employees to infer it from general harassment standards.  The bill does not define hate speech.  Instead, it describes the training that should be provided to address hate speech.  The proposed instruction would be added to, rather than replace, the subjects already required as part of harassment prevention training.

If enacted, employees would not automatically need to undergo a new training if they start a new job.  The current proposed law states that an employee would have a six month grace period to complete the training if they received compliant training within the prior two years from a current, prior, alternate, or joint employer.  The employee would then be placed on a two-year tracking schedule based on the employee’s last training. The current employer has the burden of establishing that the prior training was legally compliant.

There is some opposition to the proposed new law.  The bill has been criticized as overly broad potentially unconstitutional.  Opponents also point out that California already has strong anti-hate speech mechanics in place and that any rise in hate speech is a result of successful policies, greater transparency, and increased reporting.  Because the bill has not yet become law and there is no implementing guidance, employers should not treat it as a current, separate legal requirement.

AB 1803 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 30, 2026, and was referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations for further consideration.  Although AB 1803 is not yet in effect, it is a good practice to make sure employees are current on harassment prevention training to ensure compliance with California law.  Employers may also want to review their training materials and tracking systems so they can add the new content if the bill becomes law.  Reviewing these materials now may help employers identify what would need to be revised while they continue providing the training currently required by law.  Employers with questions regarding harassment-related training compliance are encouraged to consult with their employment counsel.

Read More

How Should a California Employer Handle a Deceased Employee’s Final Pay

by Christopher J. Nannini

August 14, 2026

Question: One of our employees recently passed away.  How should a California employer handle the employee’s final pay, including any accrued vacation?

Answer: The employer’s first step is to determine who has legal authority to receive the deceased employee’s final wages.  California law does not allow an employer to simply hand the paycheck to the person who calls first, even when that person is a close family member.

The death of an employee is a difficult event for coworkers and management alike.  In addition to responding with care and compassion, employers must also address the obligation to pay all wages owed through the date of death.  Final pay generally includes earned wages earned up to the last day of employment, including any accrued and unused vacation hours. The central question is not whether the wages are owed, but who is legally entitled to receive them.

If the employee was married or had a registered domestic partner, California provides a streamlined process.  A surviving spouse or registered domestic partner may collect the deceased employee’s salary or other compensation, including accrued unused vacation, without opening a probate proceeding, if the required affidavit or declaration is provided to the employer.  The affidavit must include specific statements regarding the employee’s death, the claimant’s status, the absence of a California probate proceeding, and the claimant’s right to collect the wages.  Employers should also require reasonable proof of identity before releasing payment.

California law limits the amount of wages that may be paid directly to a surviving spouse or registered domestic partner.  For deaths occurring on or after April 1, 2025, the statutory net compensation limit for the spousal collection procedure described above is $20,875.  If the final wages exceed that amount, the employer will need to wait for formal estate documentation before releasing the funds.  Because the amount is adjusted every three years, employers should confirm the current limit before issuing payment.  Special rules may apply for certain public safety employees, so employers should evaluate those circumstances separately.

If the employee was not married and did not have a registered domestic partner, the answer depends on whether someone with authority over the estate comes forward.  If there is a will, trust, executor, or other authorized representative, the employer should follow proper written instructions and make payment consistent with the representative’s authority.  If no formal probate has been opened and the estate qualifies as a small estate, heirs may be able to use California’s small estate affidavit procedure.  For deaths on or after April 1, 2025, the relevant small estate threshold is $208,850, excluding real property.  At least 40 days must pass after the employee’s death before that affidavit process may be used.

If the estate is larger than the small estate threshold, or if there is a probate proceeding, the safer course is generally to make the final wages payable to the employee’s estate or to the authorized estate representative.  If no spouse, registered domestic partner, heir, executor, or other authorized person contacts the employer, the employer should not keep the funds indefinitely or guess at the proper recipient.  Instead, the employer should contact the Office of the Labor Commissioner for guidance regarding payment of the unclaimed wages for later disbursement to lawful beneficiaries.

Employers should document each step, obtain the required affidavits and proof of identity, and avoid issuing payment until the legal authority of the recipient is clear.  Because final pay for a deceased employee implicates wage payment rules, probate procedures, and family status issues, employers are encouraged to consult employment counsel before releasing the final check.

Read More

DOL Issues Guidance on FMLA Leave When Travelling to Medical Appointments

by Fenton & Keller

August 5, 2026

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has long allowed eligible employees to take leave to attend qualifying medical appointments. Earlier this year, the federal Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division issued an Opinion Letter confirming that employees may use FMLA leave for both the medical appointment and the time reasonably necessary to travel to and from that medical appointment.

The DOL Opinion Letter addressed a question about an employee requesting intermittent FMLA leave to attend medical appointments for their own serious health condition. The employee provided their employer with a medical certification which indicated that the medical appointments would occur once per month and last for 45 minutes.

The medical certification lacked any indication about the amount of travel time required to attend the medical appointments, but the employee told their employer that they needed one hour to travel to or from their medical appointments.

The DOL concluded that this travel time would also qualify for FMLA leave.

Generally speaking, the FMLA provides eligible employees with up to 12 work weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave in a 12-month period for the employee's own serious health condition or to care for a qualifying family member, such as a parent, child, or spouse, with a serious health condition.

A "serious health condition" is an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care or continuing treatment by a healthcare provider.

The FMLA provides job-protected leave for medical appointments, such as those related to the diagnosis, monitoring, addressing, or treating of an employee's or their qualifying family member's serious health condition.

In its Opinion Letter, the DOL reasoned that since FMLA-qualifying medical treatment often cannot occur without travel to the medical provider's location, such travel must therefore be considered "part and parcel" of that medical treatment. Accordingly, the DOL concluded that such travel time would also be designated as FMLA leave.

The DOL Opinion Letter provided an example where the employee's 30 minutes of travel time to a medical appointment, and the time at the medical appointment, during the employee's scheduled workday qualified as FMLA leave.

Not only does this example illustrate the topic of travel time, but it also serves as a reminder to employers that even though the total amount of FMLA leave is stated in workweeks, employers should not forget that FMLA leave can be taken in smaller increments.

Employers should have procedures in place for providing and tracking an employee's use of FMLA leave, even leave taken in smaller time increments.

In the initial question presented to the DOL, the medical certification lacked any mention of travel time.

The DOL explained that a medical certification need not explicitly indicate the amount of travel time since the FMLA does not require a health care provider to furnish such information. Employers should not deny FMLA leave requests, or leave for the eligible travel time, just because the travel time is not explicitly indicated on a medical certification.

The DOL also provided helpful guidance for minimizing the potential misuse of FMLA leave for unrelated travel time. The Opinion Letter indicated that only the portion of the employee's absence which is attributable to the qualifying medical treatment and the associated travel would be covered FMLA leave.

The DOL stated that FMLA-protected leave for travel time does not include travel to or from, or stops for, activities unrelated to obtaining medical care and treatment. The Opinion Letter provided a hypothetical example of a parent ineligible for FMLA leave for the travel time to accompany their child, who has a chronic serous health condition but does not need care, during a school band trip since that leave is unrelated to the child's serious health condition.

While opinion letters do not carry precedential weight like statutes or regulations, they nevertheless may be a helpful resource for HR professionals and employers.

The Family and Medical Leave Act provides job-protected leave for medical appointments, such as those related to the diagnosis, monitoring, addressing, or treating of an employee's or their qualifying family member's serious health condition. Following this recent opinion letter, employers should consider evaluating their FMLA leave policies and procedures regarding travel to and from medical appointments. California employers should also keep in mind that the DOL Opinion Letter only addressed travel to medical appointments with respect to the federal FMLA, and made no mention of the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA").

While the federal FMLA and the CFRA both provide job-protected leave and are similar in many respects, they are also different in others. Employers should consult with their HR department and/or legal counsel should they have questions about providing employees with leave related to travel to qualifying medical appointments.

Bradley Levang is an attorney with the Fenton & Keller law firm. This article is intended to address topics of general interest and should not be construed as legal advice. For more information, please visit www.fentonkeller.com.

Read More

School-Related Leaves as Summer Ends

by Alyssa C. Matsuhara

July 31, 2026

Question: With August approaching, many of my employees have children who go back to school soon.  What are my legal obligations as an employer if an employee wants to take time off to go to a school-related activity for their child?

Answer: Employer obligations with respect to school-related leaves depend on the size of the company and the reason for the employee’s request.

In California, employers who employ 25 or more employees at the same location must allow eligible employees to take up to 40 hours of unpaid leave each year to participate in certain school or child care activities.

An employee is eligible for school or child-care activities if he or she is a parent, guardian, stepparent, foster parent, grandparent, or person who stands in place of a parent, to a child or children of kindergarten age or grades 1 to 12.  If both parents are employed by the same employer at the same location, only the parent who first gave notice to the employer is entitled to take leave, but the other parent may also take leave with the employer’s approval.

Covered Activities

School-related activities include finding, enrolling, or reenrolling the child in a school or with a licensed child care provider or participating in activities of the school or licensed child care provider.  An employee may also take leave to address a child care provider or school emergency.  An “emergency” means that the employee’s child cannot remain in a school or with a child care provider due to any of the following: the school or child care provider has requested that the child be picked up or has an attendance policy that prohibits the child from attending or requires that the child be picked up; behavioral or discipline problems; unexpected closure or unavailability of the school or child care provider; or a natural disaster such as a fire, earthquake, or flood.

Notice Required

For planned absences, such as participating in school activities, employees must provide the employer with reasonable notice prior to the absence.  Time off for planned absences must not exceed eight hours in any calendar month.

For absences related to a school emergency, employees must give notice as soon as possible, and the eight-hour limit for planned absences does not apply to school emergency situations.

Employees, if requested by the employer, must provide documentation from the school or child care provider as proof that the employee engaged in child-related activities.  The documentation should be whatever written verification the school or child care provider deems appropriate and reasonable and must include the specific date and time of the activity.

Employees may use existing vacation, personal leave, or paid time off to participate in school-related leave unless otherwise provided by a collective bargaining agreement.  However, the employee may also use unpaid time off for these absences.

Other Leaves Related to Disciplinary Action

In addition to allowing leave for school-related activities and emergencies, all employers—regardless of size—may need to provide unpaid time off to employees who need to attend a child’s suspension or expulsion meeting or to comply with a school’s suspension or expulsion requirements.  Employees who take leave for these reasons must give their employer reasonable notice for the absence.  Time off for this leave can be paid or unpaid.

Employers should contact their labor counsel if they have questions about leaves of absence related to school activities and appearances.

Read More