The Civil Rights Council of the California Civil Rights Department has amended its regulations concerning the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) to address automated-decision systems in the workplace. These regulations aim to protect against employment discrimination given the growing concerns over employers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated-decision systems to make or facilitate employment decisions resulting in “algorithmic discrimination.” These regulations will go into effect on October 1, 2025. All employers should note that the amended regulations extend the required retention period for certain employment-related records. In addition, all employers or other entities using automated-decision systems to facilitate human decision-making regarding employment benefits should carefully review the regulations and consult counsel if necessary. The full text of the amended regulations is available at the CRD’s website: https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/civilrightscouncil/ (the regulations are “Exhibit B” to the March 21, 2025 meeting).

Last year, California enacted a law expanding employees’ right to time off and right to be accommodated if they or their family members are victims of violence. We summarized the law in our 2024 Legislative Update, available here. Among other things, the new law requires employers to inform each employee of their rights under the bill in writing.

The United States Supreme Court recently confirmed that a plaintiff seeking to establish a claim for employment discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) must prove that they held or desired a job and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation at the time of an employer’s alleged act of disability-based discrimination. Thus, the Court concluded that a retiree who neither held nor desired a job could not state a claim for disability discrimination based on health benefits provided to retirees. This case emphasizes the importance of the threshold determination of whether a plaintiff is a “qualified individual” under the ADA; but the Court acknowledged there might be multiple other avenues to challenge retirement benefits that differentiate between retirees on the basis of disability. Thus, employers should continue to exercise caution in developing retirement benefit plans.

The California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, decision in Carranza v. City of Los Angeles on May 23, 2025 sends a clear message to California employers about the changing landscape of how courts view sexual harassment claims and highlights the responsibility of every California employer to take all employee complaints of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation seriously, by following up with an immediate and effective response.

In a positive development for California employers, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, determined that revocable, prospective written waivers of 30-minute meal periods for shifts between five and six hours are enforceable in the absence of any evidence the waiver is unconscionable or unduly coercive.

We recently published a Special Alert related to President Trump’s executive orders on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). As an update, a recent legal challenge led to the temporary suspension of several DEI initiatives mandated by these executive orders affecting federal contractors and recipients of federal funding as well as other private employers. Specifically, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary nationwide injunction as to significant portions of President Trump’s executive orders titled, “Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”

During his first week in office, President Trump issued multiple executive orders, including several that rescind previous orders related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) within the federal workforce. These new directives call for the elimination of DEI programs within federal agencies and government contracting, marking a significant shift in federal policy. It is not yet clear whether these executive orders will survive legal challenges, and whether they will result in actual changes or are just an expression of policy values. In light of these uncertainties, companies with federal contracts should consult with counsel, and other private companies should monitor any legal changes and consult counsel as needed.