Employment Law Blog

We have already seen rules laid out for how artificial intelligence is used in the hiring process and applicant screening. Now, to complete the circle, the question shifts to what happens after you’re hired: when a software decides your fate at work – flagging you for discipline or recommending you for termination – where exactly is the human in the loop?

When you hire a lawyer, you expect the lawyer to do the thinking – not an algorithm, not a tool, not artificial intelligence. But with generative AI becoming more available and common in law offices, the state of California drew a hard line on September 30, 2026. Senate Bill 574, which takes effect on January 1, 2027, establishes clear statutory rules for how lawyers, arbitrators, and those in the practice of law use generative AI.

Most arbitration fights happen at the start of a case. The employer produces the agreement, the employee challenges it, and a judge decides where the case will be heard. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has now addressed a harder version of that question: what happens when the harassment evidence does not surface until the arbitration is already a year old.

When an employee is at work, the employer has to pay them for their time. When the employee uses their own car for activities done in the furtherance of work, the employer also needs to pay them for out-of-pocket expenses.

California regulates the hiring process from the job posting forward, and most of those rules run in the applicant's favor before an offer is ever signed. This article walks the hiring sequence from the applicant's side: what the posting must disclose, what the application and interview cannot ask, why a trial shift is paid work, what changes at the conditional offer, what a background check entitles you to see, the exact steps required before an offer is withdrawn over a conviction, and what a withdrawn offer can be worth after a relocation.

CRD's $230,000 Simi Valley settlement brings together an alleged harassment report, a later reprimand, and a denied modified-schedule request. The article explains what California employees can learn about protected activity, retaliation, reasonable accommodation, the interactive process, documentation, and CRD mediation while making clear that the settlement involved no admission or finding of liability.

A California appellate court upheld sanctions against a firm whose brief cited cases that did not exist. What it means for employers and workers using AI.

California's rules on automated and AI-assisted employment decisions took effect October 1, 2025. What they cover, and what they mean for employees.

A California Court of Appeal decision gives employees stronger arguments against arbitration agreements that reach beyond workplace disputes.

A California Court of Appeal decision explains how the EFAA can block forced arbitration when a worker pleads a FEHA sexual harassment claim.

California workers may be owed more than their base hourly rate when overtime, break premiums, sick pay, or other wage rules apply. Here is why the regular rate of pay matters.

A new Ninth Circuit opinion says courts must identify the legal basis before sending employment claims to arbitration. Here is what California workers should know.