CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS: NEW LAWS FOR 2025 PART 1

This year, I am attempting to complete my summary of new laws for 2025 in two installments. Stay tuned for Part 2. If you have any questions regarding any of these new laws, please shoot me an email for more detail. Suffice it to say, there are some changes that will need to be made to employee handbooks for 2025. The Employment Law Group at Hunt Ortmann is ready to assist with any employment needs for the coming year!

AB 2123 - Amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Code: Existing law permits employees to take paid family leave to provide wage replacement benefits to workers who take time off work to care for certain seriously ill family members, to bond with a minor child within one year of birth or placement, or to participate in a qualifying exigency related to the covered active duty or call to covered active duty of certain family members. Previously, an employer was permitted to require an employee to take up to 2 weeks of accrued vacation before the employee received the benefits during any 12-month period in which the employee is eligible for these benefits. The new law prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to use accrued vacation for any disability commencing on or after January 1, 2025.  This bill also provides expanded leave for employee (and family) who are victims of serious and violent crimes.

SB 399 - “California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act”: Existing law encourages and protects the right of employees to full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment.  Existing law also protects employees from interference, restraint, or coercion of employers in the designation of such representatives, self-organization, or other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. This bill generally prohibits an employer from subjecting, or threatening to subject, an employee to discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action because the employee declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or affirmatively declines to participate in, receive, or listen to any communications designed to communicate the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters and would require an employee who refuses to attend a meeting as described to continue to be paid, as specified. The bill would impose a civil penalty of $500 on an employer who violates these provisions. The bill authorizes Labor Commissioner enforcement, as well as employee civil actions for injunctive relief.

SB1100 - Employer Restrictions on Driver’s License Requirements: It is an unlawful employment practice to include statements about the need for a driver’s license in job advertisements, postings, applications, and similar employment material. The law eliminates the requirement as a condition of employment unless certain requirements are met. An applicant must have a driver’s license if the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions of the position; (2) the employer reasonably believes that using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer. Alternative forms of transportation include, but are not limited to: rideshare services, taxis, carpooling, bicycling, or walking.

SB 1137- Intersectionality of Protected Classes: This bill clarifies the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and other laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis not just of individual protected traits, but also on the basis of the intersectionality (e.g., combination) of two or more protected traits. The California Legislature explained that different forms of inequality may operate together, exacerbate each other, and may result in amplified forms of harm, such as when an individual claims multiple bases for discrimination or harassment, it may be necessary to establish whether the discrimination or harassment occurred on the basis of a combination of these factors, not just one protected characteristic alone.