Discussion
California: Court Discretion to Reduce PAGA Penalties
|
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CA
|
EFFECTIVE
JUL 1, 2026 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
Quick Look
- A court has discretion to reduce PAGA penalties; there is no statutory method for reducing a maximum civil penalty.
|
Discussion
In Taduran v. Glidewell, the California Court of Appeals said that the trial court has discretion to reduce Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) penalties. The Labor Code does not mandate any particular method for reducing a maximum civil penalty.
In this case, an employee sued his former employer for a series of Labor Code violations, resulting in a finding of liability against the employer. Although the theoretical maximum PAGA penalties totaled tens of millions of dollars, the trial court exercised its statutory discretion to reduce the penalties, ultimately awarding about $516,000. It calculated most reductions on a per-employee basis (except the bonus pay issue, where it imposed the full penalty), reasoning that imposing the maximum would be “unjust, arbitrary, and oppressive” given factors like the lack of actual unpaid wages on some claims, the employer’s good-faith practices, and its willingness to correct the problems and repay affected workers.
On appeal, the employee argued that the trial court was legally required to reduce penalties on a per-pay-period basis rather than a per-employee basis. The appellate court rejected this, holding that the Labor Code simply authorizes a “lesser amount” without mandating any particular reduction formula. While the maximum penalty is initially calculated per pay period, nothing in the statute dictates how the court must apply a reduction, meaning a court may reasonably use a percentage, per-pay-period, or per-employee method. Ultimately, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in either the method used or the size of the reduction.
While this ruling may give hope to employers looking for a reduced penalty, the case still highlights the need to maintain good-faith practices to pay wages appropriately and promptly correct any errors. Having policies and practices that support a compliant culture can go a long way, even when errors are found.
Action Items
- Review wage and hour policies and practices for compliance.
- Implement a regular audit schedule to verify wage and hour compliance.
- Consult with legal counsel when implementing wage and hour corrections.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on applicable wage and hour requirements.
California: Federal FAA Exceptions Adopted
|
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CA
|
EFFECTIVE
JAN 1, 2027 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
Quick Look
- A new law adopts exclusions to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) into the California Code.
|
Discussion
AB 2155 adopts exclusions to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) into the California Code. The FAA specifically excludes contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce, and the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (9 U.S.C. Sec. 401 et seq.), including claims that relate to a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute. These exclusions cannot be forced to arbitration, even with a signed agreement.
By adopting the FAA’s exclusions into California law, it closes a previously existing loophole where some claims could not be forced to arbitration under federal law but may be compelled under state law. Employers with employees who may be in the excluded class should review arbitration agreements with legal counsel to determine whether they will still be enforceable. Similarly, such employers may need to rethink their arbitration strategy altogether.
Action Items
- Have arbitration agreements reviewed by legal counsel.
California: FMCSA Preempts Meal and Rest Requirements for Passenger-Carrying Drivers
|
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CA
|
EFFECTIVE
JUN 4, 2026 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
Quick Look
- State meal and rest requirements for passenger-carrying drivers are preempted by the FMCSA.
|
Discussion
In California v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the State of California challenged a 2020 decision by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) that preempted California’s meal and rest break (MRB) rules as applied to drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles (such as buses). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied California’s petition for review and upheld the preemption. Under the Motor Carrier Safety Act, the Secretary of Transportation reviews state commercial-vehicle safety laws and may preempt any that are “additional to or more stringent than” federal regulations if the state law provides no safety benefit, is incompatible with federal rules, or imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
California’s MRB rules, contained in state wage orders, require a 30-minute meal period for shifts over five hours (plus a second meal period for shifts over ten hours), along with a 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked, and penalty pay for noncompliance. These requirements are more demanding than the federal hours-of-service (HOS) regulations, which cap consecutive driving and on-duty hours for bus drivers but, unlike the rules for freight drivers, do not mandate a mid-shift 30-minute break.
In 2020, the FMCSA determined that California’s MRB rules were preempted by federal law. The agency found that the rules qualified as regulations “on commercial motor vehicle safety” and were more stringent than the federal HOS rules. It further concluded that the MRB rules provided no measurable safety benefit beyond the federal framework, and could even create unsafe conditions when drivers struggle to find safe parking to comply. The FMCSA also found the rules incompatible with the flexibility built into the federal framework, and that they imposed an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce by creating a “patchwork” of differing state requirements.
Reviewing the agency’s decision under the deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard of the Administrative Procedure Act, the court found that its earlier decision in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. FMCSA (2021) (which upheld the FMCSA’s parallel 2018 preemption of California’s MRB rules for freight drivers) largely foreclosed California’s arguments. The court rejected California’s contention that the rules fell outside the FMCSA’s authority because they are laws of general applicability rather than being “specifically directed at” commercial motor vehicle safety, explaining that Teamsters had already held such rules qualify when they cover the same subject matter as existing federal regulation.
The court also rejected California’s narrower argument that the FMCSA could not preempt mid-shift break rules for bus drivers because the agency had not itself promulgated specific break regulations for passenger-carrying vehicles—holding that California read Teamsters too narrowly, since the MRB rules fall within the FMCSA’s regulatory domain and the same subject matter is already federally regulated. Finally, the court found the FMCSA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding the rules imposed a significant operational burden on interstate commerce, which alone was sufficient to justify preemption. Accordingly, the panel denied the petition and upheld the FMCSA’s preemption determination.
Action Items
- Have meal and rest policies reviewed and updated for compliance.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.
California: New CRD Fact Sheet
On May 20, 2026, California’s Civil Rights Department (CRD) issued a new fact sheet on religious discrimination and workplace accommodations. Governed by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2012 (WRFA), California’s protections extend beyond federal Title VII, covering interns and volunteers in addition to employees, and reaching both perceived religious beliefs and associational discrimination (adverse treatment based on a connection to someone of a particular faith). Unlawful conduct can include hostile work environment harassment, religious stereotyping, discriminatory dress and grooming policies, and retaliation against employees who raise faith-based objections or accommodation requests. Employers with California employees should review religious accommodation policies and train managers on these broader protections.
California: Documentation Defeats Alleged Protected Activity
On June 26, 2026, in Han v. Pfizer, a federal district court said that historical documentation supporting an employer’s decision to terminate within two months of an employee making an alleged whistleblowing claim showed the legitimate, independent reasons for termination. Specifically, the employer had long documented the employee’s performance issues, given weekly negative feedback on performance, and was in process of preparing a notice of underperformance. The documentation showed that the employer would have terminated the employee even if he had not engaged in the alleged whistleblowing. This case highlights the need for consistent performance documentation to support legitimate business decisions, including but not limited to, employee terminations.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
Alabama
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Alabama: New Hiring Preferences for Veterans and Their Spouses
Effective January 1, 2027, HB 307 allows private employers to voluntarily adopt hiring and promotion preference policies for veterans, spouses of veterans, and spouses of active-duty service members. An active-duty service member is defined as on active duty as a member of the National Guard or a reserve or active component of the Armed Forces of the United States. A veteran is an individual who has ever served in the National Guard or a reserve or active component of the Armed Forces of the United States and has been honorable discharged. All preferential policies must be in writing and uniformly applied.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
Arizona
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Arizona: Updates for Independent Contractors and Military Leave Protections
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in AZ
EFFECTIVE
SEP 12, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
The Arizona legislature passed two new laws affecting employers. The first expands independent contractor agreement requirements, and the second clarifies military leave use and protections.
Independent Contractors. HB 2310 amends existing law governing when “qualified marketplace contractors” (e.g., people who use a digital platform to provide services to customers) are treated as independent contractors rather than employees for purposes like unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation. Specifically, a written contract with an independent contractor must say that the contract may be terminated without cause at any time and on reasonable notice where the contract expressly provides for termination by either party to the contract or may be terminated unilaterally by a qualified marketplace contractor at any time on reasonable notice given to the other party.
Military Leave. HB 2663 amends state military duty leave to clarify that leave may be used for active military duty or any training, not necessary just to attend camps, maneuvers, formations or armory drills. The bill also eliminates the distinction in protections between called to duty or training, referring instead simply to being under “competent military orders” as the trigger for protection.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
California
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
California: Court Discretion to Reduce PAGA Penalties
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CA
EFFECTIVE
JUL 1, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
In Taduran v. Glidewell, the California Court of Appeals said that the trial court has discretion to reduce Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) penalties. The Labor Code does not mandate any particular method for reducing a maximum civil penalty.
In this case, an employee sued his former employer for a series of Labor Code violations, resulting in a finding of liability against the employer. Although the theoretical maximum PAGA penalties totaled tens of millions of dollars, the trial court exercised its statutory discretion to reduce the penalties, ultimately awarding about $516,000. It calculated most reductions on a per-employee basis (except the bonus pay issue, where it imposed the full penalty), reasoning that imposing the maximum would be “unjust, arbitrary, and oppressive” given factors like the lack of actual unpaid wages on some claims, the employer’s good-faith practices, and its willingness to correct the problems and repay affected workers.
On appeal, the employee argued that the trial court was legally required to reduce penalties on a per-pay-period basis rather than a per-employee basis. The appellate court rejected this, holding that the Labor Code simply authorizes a “lesser amount” without mandating any particular reduction formula. While the maximum penalty is initially calculated per pay period, nothing in the statute dictates how the court must apply a reduction, meaning a court may reasonably use a percentage, per-pay-period, or per-employee method. Ultimately, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in either the method used or the size of the reduction.
While this ruling may give hope to employers looking for a reduced penalty, the case still highlights the need to maintain good-faith practices to pay wages appropriately and promptly correct any errors. Having policies and practices that support a compliant culture can go a long way, even when errors are found.
Action Items
California: Federal FAA Exceptions Adopted
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CA
EFFECTIVE
JAN 1, 2027
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
AB 2155 adopts exclusions to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) into the California Code. The FAA specifically excludes contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce, and the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (9 U.S.C. Sec. 401 et seq.), including claims that relate to a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute. These exclusions cannot be forced to arbitration, even with a signed agreement.
By adopting the FAA’s exclusions into California law, it closes a previously existing loophole where some claims could not be forced to arbitration under federal law but may be compelled under state law. Employers with employees who may be in the excluded class should review arbitration agreements with legal counsel to determine whether they will still be enforceable. Similarly, such employers may need to rethink their arbitration strategy altogether.
Action Items
California: FMCSA Preempts Meal and Rest Requirements for Passenger-Carrying Drivers
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CA
EFFECTIVE
JUN 4, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
In California v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the State of California challenged a 2020 decision by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) that preempted California’s meal and rest break (MRB) rules as applied to drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles (such as buses). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied California’s petition for review and upheld the preemption. Under the Motor Carrier Safety Act, the Secretary of Transportation reviews state commercial-vehicle safety laws and may preempt any that are “additional to or more stringent than” federal regulations if the state law provides no safety benefit, is incompatible with federal rules, or imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
California’s MRB rules, contained in state wage orders, require a 30-minute meal period for shifts over five hours (plus a second meal period for shifts over ten hours), along with a 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked, and penalty pay for noncompliance. These requirements are more demanding than the federal hours-of-service (HOS) regulations, which cap consecutive driving and on-duty hours for bus drivers but, unlike the rules for freight drivers, do not mandate a mid-shift 30-minute break.
In 2020, the FMCSA determined that California’s MRB rules were preempted by federal law. The agency found that the rules qualified as regulations “on commercial motor vehicle safety” and were more stringent than the federal HOS rules. It further concluded that the MRB rules provided no measurable safety benefit beyond the federal framework, and could even create unsafe conditions when drivers struggle to find safe parking to comply. The FMCSA also found the rules incompatible with the flexibility built into the federal framework, and that they imposed an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce by creating a “patchwork” of differing state requirements.
Reviewing the agency’s decision under the deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard of the Administrative Procedure Act, the court found that its earlier decision in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. FMCSA (2021) (which upheld the FMCSA’s parallel 2018 preemption of California’s MRB rules for freight drivers) largely foreclosed California’s arguments. The court rejected California’s contention that the rules fell outside the FMCSA’s authority because they are laws of general applicability rather than being “specifically directed at” commercial motor vehicle safety, explaining that Teamsters had already held such rules qualify when they cover the same subject matter as existing federal regulation.
The court also rejected California’s narrower argument that the FMCSA could not preempt mid-shift break rules for bus drivers because the agency had not itself promulgated specific break regulations for passenger-carrying vehicles—holding that California read Teamsters too narrowly, since the MRB rules fall within the FMCSA’s regulatory domain and the same subject matter is already federally regulated. Finally, the court found the FMCSA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding the rules imposed a significant operational burden on interstate commerce, which alone was sufficient to justify preemption. Accordingly, the panel denied the petition and upheld the FMCSA’s preemption determination.
Action Items
California: New CRD Fact Sheet
On May 20, 2026, California’s Civil Rights Department (CRD) issued a new fact sheet on religious discrimination and workplace accommodations. Governed by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2012 (WRFA), California’s protections extend beyond federal Title VII, covering interns and volunteers in addition to employees, and reaching both perceived religious beliefs and associational discrimination (adverse treatment based on a connection to someone of a particular faith). Unlawful conduct can include hostile work environment harassment, religious stereotyping, discriminatory dress and grooming policies, and retaliation against employees who raise faith-based objections or accommodation requests. Employers with California employees should review religious accommodation policies and train managers on these broader protections.
California: Documentation Defeats Alleged Protected Activity
On June 26, 2026, in Han v. Pfizer, a federal district court said that historical documentation supporting an employer’s decision to terminate within two months of an employee making an alleged whistleblowing claim showed the legitimate, independent reasons for termination. Specifically, the employer had long documented the employee’s performance issues, given weekly negative feedback on performance, and was in process of preparing a notice of underperformance. The documentation showed that the employer would have terminated the employee even if he had not engaged in the alleged whistleblowing. This case highlights the need for consistent performance documentation to support legitimate business decisions, including but not limited to, employee terminations.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
Colorado
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Colorado: Legislative Updates
APPLIES TO
As Indicated
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
The Colorado legislature recently enacted three bills impacting employers: adding to CADA’s definitions; implementing state-mandated EEO reporting for 2026; and prohibiting employers from retaining ID documents for longer than 10 hours.
ID Protections. As of June 3, 2026, HB 1283 immediately prohibits employers from retaining an applicant or employee’s government-issued identification documents (ID) (e.g., state-issued driver’s license, passports, or other government-issued documents) for longer than 10 hours. Primarily, retention of ID’s are permitted for purposes of verifying work authorization when completing Form I-9, including to make a copy of the ID. Copies of ID’s may be retained in an employer’s records. ID’s may also be requested and retained for any other purpose when required or permitted by state or federal law or regulation, or when performed pursuant to a signed judicial warrant.
Employers are required to immediately begin providing applicants and employees with notice of their rights under this bill and the person must acknowledge receipt of the notice at the time the employer is verifying their work authorization eligibility. A violation of this new rule causes criminal and civil liability for employers. Violations will also be considered bias-motivated crimes. Additionally, it is a bias-motivated crime to provide, or threaten to provide, an individual’s ID to federal immigration authorities, except where otherwise permitted or required under state or federal law.
CADA Definitions. Effective August 12, 2026, HB 1045 amends the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) by adding two definitions. “Assistance animal” means an animal that does work, performs tasks, assists, or provides therapeutic emotional support to an individual with a disability, and includes an emotional support animal and a service animal. “Emotional support animal” means an animal that provides solely emotional support to an individual to alleviate a symptom or an effect of a disability.
State EEO Reporting. Effective July 1, 2027, under HB 1207, private employers who normally report EEO-1 data will be required to submit their reports to the Secretary of State. The same rules as apply to EEO-1 reporting as it existed on March 1, 2026 apply to Colorado, even if the federal EEO-1 reporting is repealed or discontinued.
Action Items
Colorado: FAMLI Updates
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CO
EFFECTIVE
JUL 1, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
As of July 1, 2026, the Colorado Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act (FAMLI) revised its rules (7 CCR 1107-3) to describe qualifying absences for which benefits may be paid. An absence is caused by a qualifying condition only if it would not have occurred but for the qualifying condition, except for holiday absences covered during continuous leave. This revision helps clarify the types of absences that qualify individuals for benefits.
The FAMLI appeals rules (7 CCR 1107-9) were also amended. Specifically, FAMLI benefits are not owed if a party files a motion to reconsider within five business days after a hearing officer reverses or modifies the denial of a FAMLI claim. A hearing officer may also reconsider their own ruling within five days (rather than 14 days) of issuance. If an individual is owed benefits as a result, they must be paid within five business days of resolution of a motion to reconsider.
Action Items
Colorado: Self-Defense Exception to At-Will Employment
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CO
EFFECTIVE
JUN 15, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
In Moreno v. Circle K Stores, the Colorado Supreme Court answered a question certified to it from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado: whether Colorado law recognizes a public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine allowing a wrongful-termination claim when an employee is fired for acting in self-defense.
Here, a 72-year-old employee was confronted during her shift by a man who picked up two hunting knives and walked around the counter toward her after demanding free cigarettes. The employee extended her arms to keep him back; the assailant grabbed cigarettes, left, and was later arrested for armed robbery. The employer fired the employee for violating its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy, which instructs employees not to “confront[,] follow, pursue, track, chase, fight[,] or follow” any customer suspected of shoplifting. The employee sued for wrongful discharge in violation of Colorado public policy.
The Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that Colorado recognizes a self-defense public-policy exception to at-will employment. The Court focused on whether self-defense is a “clearly expressed” right that an employee holds as a worker. It concluded that both the state’s self-defense statute and Colorado Constitution clearly express the boundaries of the right through explicit language and an extensive body of case law. The Court further found that self-defense is an “essential, inalienable right” belonging to all people (making it a public right rather than a merely personal or proprietary one) and that it is “job-related” because the need to defend oneself from an unprovoked attack can arise anywhere, including at work.
The Court emphasized that the exception it recognized is narrow, meaning it is limited to self-defense as an inalienable right and applies only when an employee lawfully exercises that right in response to an unprovoked attack at work. The Court was also careful to clarify what the case was not deciding. It expressed no opinion on whether the employer’s policy actually barred self-defense or merely prohibited confronting shoplifters, nor on whether the employee actually acted in self-defense or whether the employer fired her for that reason, which remain disputed factual questions.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
Connecticut
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Connecticut: More Legislative Updates!
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CT
EFFECTIVE
OCT 1, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Connecticut has passed a series of new laws touching on distracted driving, employee monitoring, data privacy, and public accommodations. Key aspects of the new bills are summarized below.
Distracted Driving and Driver Safety. HB 5464 amends Connecticut’s distracted driving law to prohibit a person, including a driver of a commercial motor vehicle, from operating a motor vehicle on a highway: (1) while holding or supporting a mobile electronic device with any part of their body; (2) while using a mobile electronic device unless it is being used in a hands-free mode; (3) while reading, viewing, or typing a text message or other nonvoice message or communication on such a device; or (4) when a video or moving image on such a device, or an installed screen or similar device, is visible to the person while seated in the normal operating position (certain exceptions apply). The same bill also requires Transportation Network Companies (TNC) to adopt service animal nondiscrimination policies and requires TNC drivers to annually complete sexual assault prevention and driver education training. Employers with employees who drive as part of their job duties, particularly those operating commercial motor vehicles or working as TNC drivers, should review this expanded prohibition and update relevant policies and training accordingly.
Employee Monitoring and Surveillance. SB 439 and SB 472 both address electronic surveillance in the workplace. SB 439 carves out an exemption for third-party self-service kiosks from the state’s existing prohibition on electronic surveillance devices in employee lounges. SB 472 imposes a new affirmative obligation on employers to notify employees of electronic surveillance practices, including disclosing which prohibited activities may justify surveillance without advance notice. Under the amended law, employers who engage in electronic monitoring must provide each employee with a written statement specifying where and what types of electronic monitoring may occur.
Privacy and Data Security. SB 4 amends the Connecticut Data Privacy Act to establish new requirements for facial recognition technology (FRT). Specifically, any controller using FRT on its premises for security, fraud prevention, or similar purposes must exclusively match images against a database it maintains itself (rather than a third-party database) and post signage at premises entrances disclosing FRT use and linking to its FRT policy. Notably, this signage requirement does not apply to entrances restricted to authorized employees, giving employers some flexibility when using FRT for internal security purposes in employee-only areas. Employers using facial recognition tools on their premises, whether for building security, loss prevention, or similar purposes, should review their practices for compliance with these new database and signage requirements.
Discrimination and Public Access. SB 90 expands the state’s hate crime statute to cover certain discriminatory public accommodation practices. While primarily directed at public accommodations rather than the employment relationship itself, employers open to the public should be aware of this expanded criminal exposure.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
Delaware
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Delaware: Updates to Rules for Wage Payment
Effective May 7, 2026, Delaware updated its rules regarding deductions from wages and wage notification. The updates address meal breaks in certain situations. Employees exempt from meal breaks must be allowed to eat meals at their workstation or other authorized locations and to use restroom facilities as necessary. These employees should be compensated for this time. The 30-minute break requirement also does not apply where public safety or an individual or property may be injured, harmed, or damaged during the course of that break. There is now also an exception for employers who have fewer than five employees on a single shift. Employers can comply with the requirement to pay wages by issuing a payroll debit card. Wage theft is also defined as a crime punished by civil penalties and criminal charges and can include a potential felony conviction for repeat offenders. Deductions must be made only if allowed by law or are expressly authorized in writing by the employee and for the benefit of the employee. Employers also must provide written notice of wage rates to each new hire and post it in a prominent and accessible place at the worksite. The notice must contain: (1) rate or rates of pay, including any additional compensation related to the payment of wages; (2) how the employee is paid: by the hour, shift, day, week, commission, etc.; (3) the regular payday; (4) a detailed statement for each pay period; (5) official name of the employer and any other names used for doing business; (6) address and phone number of the employer’s main office or principal location; (7) allowances taken as part of minimum wages, including tips, meals and lodging deductions; and (8) employment practices and policies regarding vacation pay, sick leave and comparable matters. The rules have also expanded the scale of investigations into violations so employers need to ensure they are in compliance.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
Florida
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Florida: Expanded Background Screening Requirements for Care Providers
Effective July 1, 2026, SB 1168 amends Florida’s Level 2 background screening requirements for individuals employed by or volunteering with care providers and other qualified entities. The bill adds several new offenses to the list of disqualifying crimes, including DUI manslaughter, domestic violence, offenses against intellectual property, offenses against computer users and systems, animal cruelty, counterfeiting of driver’s licenses or identification cards, threats and extortion, bribery, and introducing contraband into county detention facilities. The law also closes a loophole by prohibiting individuals screened through the Care Provider Background Screening Clearinghouse from denying or failing to acknowledge prior arrests, even where those records have been sealed or expunged. Employers in the health care, childcare, elder care, and education sectors that rely on Level 2 screenings in Florida should update their background check protocols to reflect the expanded list of disqualifying offenses.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
Georgia
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Georgia: New Criminal Background Check Requirements for Mental Health Facilities
APPLIES TO
Certain Mental Health Facilities Employers with Employees in GA
EFFECTIVE
JUL 1, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Effective July 1, 2026, HB 1097 requires the owners, applicants and employees of licensed community living facilities, drug abuse treatment and education programs, and adult residential mental health programs to submit to criminal background checks, license status check, and registry checks. This includes individuals who have direct access to individuals such as duties that involve routine personal contact with a patient, resident, or client, including, but not limited to, face-to-face contact, hands-on physical assistance, verbal cuing, reminding, standing by or monitoring or activities that require the person to be routinely alone with the patient’s, resident’s, or client’s property or access to such property or financial information, including, but not limited to, the patient’s, resident’s, or client’s checkbook, debit and credit cards, resident trust funds, banking records, stock accounts, or brokerage accounts.
A criminal records check means a search of the criminal records maintained by the Georgia Crime Information Center and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether an owner, applicant, or employee has a criminal record. A registry check means a review of the nurse aide registry, the national and state sexual offender registries, and the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities as authorized in Sections 1128 and 1156 of the federal Social Security Act, as it existed on February 1, 2018, or any other registry useful for the administration of background checks for applicable facilities.
Negatively affected applicants or employees can challenge the findings. A personnel file containing evidence of the required checks must be maintained by each facility. Facilities are required to terminate employees who do not pass such checks. A facility that does not terminate an employee who has been found to have an ineligible or failed a registry check shall be liable for a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $500.00 for each day that a violation occurs, not to exceed a total of $10,000.00.
Action Items
Georgia: Updates to Service Dog Requirements
Effective July 1, 2026, HB 668 amends several titles of the Official Code of Georgia to modernize and strengthen protections for service dogs and the individuals who rely on them. The bill replaces references to “assistance dogs” and “guide dogs” with the unified term “service dog,” which is broadly defined to include any dog individually trained to perform tasks directly assisting a physically or mentally impaired person. It also expands the protected class of persons from those with specific physical or sensory disabilities to any “physically or mentally impaired person,” a broader category that includes those with cognitive, psychological, developmental, or learning disabilities. New definitions are introduced for key terms including “activities of daily living,” “owner training,” and “trainer,” and the bill extends rights related to public accommodations, public transit, and housing to this wider group of individuals. The amended law also creates a tiered penalty structure for offenses involving service dogs such as interfering with a service dog (frightening, obstructing, or allowing one’s own dog to harass it) Additionally, the bill creates a misdemeanor penalty for individuals who deliberately misrepresent themselves as qualified to use or train a service dog to obtain accommodations under the law.
Georgia: Human Trafficking Prevention Training
Effective July 1, 2026, SB 570 amends the Georgia Human Trafficking Prevention Training Act to require all inn employees and third-party short-term rental property managers to complete annual human trafficking awareness training within 60 days of hire and by December 31 of their first full year, with exemptions for owner-managed properties, properties rented fewer than 15 days per year, and individuals who completed qualifying training within 12 months prior to July 1, 2026. Training content must cover trafficking identification, labor vs. sex trafficking distinctions, employee reporting roles, and hotline contact information. Covered employers must also adopt written reporting policies, maintain training acknowledgment records for the duration of employment plus one year post-separation, and produce those records to the Office of the Attorney General within ten business days of a written request.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
Hawaii
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Hawaii: Background Check Requirements for Healthcare Facilities
Effective July 1, 2026, Hawaii’s HB 2576 clarifies and streamlines background check requirements for healthcare facility applicants, operators, and direct patient access employees. The law distinguishes between a “fingerprint-based background check” (e.g., a one-time fingerprint search of state and FBI criminal history databases) and a “name-based background check” (e.g., a review of abuse, neglect, and criminal history records using an individual’s name and identifying information). Most individuals will now undergo a single fingerprint-based background check, with exceptions for certain licensed healthcare professionals and hospital employees, along with an initial name-based background check. Operators and direct patient access employees must also undergo a name-based background check every two years thereafter. The law permits hospitals to conduct their own name-based background checks in lieu of the state, allows background check fees to be passed on to the individuals screened, and provides good-faith immunity from civil liability for entities relying on the results. Employers and operators of healthcare facilities in Hawaii should update their screening protocols to reflect the new definitions and recurring check requirements.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
Idaho
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Idaho: Updates on Background Checks
APPLIES TO
As Indicated
EFFECTIVE
JUL 1, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
The Idaho legislature recently enacted bills requiring employers who have access to children, elderly, or vulnerable adults to use fingerprint-based background screening.
Background Check Requirements. HB 494 requires fingerprint-based background checks for individuals working with the Department of Health and Welfare with direct access to children, elderly, or vulnerable adults, such as daycare facilities, home health agencies, and assisted living facilities. The requirement applies to employees, contractors, and volunteers for a number of listed entities or programs. An employer that acts in reasonable reliance on the clearance determination of a background check is immune from liability thereafter.
Background Check Process. HB 521 says that any private, noncriminal justice entities qualifying to participate under the National Child Protection Act of 1993 and Volunteers for Children Act that serve vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities must submit a request for fingerprint screening to the bureau for a covered individual, independent contractor, vendor, employee, or volunteer who has supervised or unsupervised access to children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities. Notably, criminal history records must be kept confidential.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase