California
San Francisco, CA: Fair Chance Act Expanded
|
APPLIES TO Employers with 5+ Employees in San Francisco, CA |
EFFECTIVE AUG 10, 2026 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
San Francisco Ordinance No. 128-26 amended the City’s Fair Chance Ordinance, which is a “ban-the-box” law restricting the use of criminal history when making employment decisions. The ordinance’s primary focus is new protections for people with out-of-state criminal convictions or arrests tied to conduct that is legal in California but criminalized elsewhere.
The ordinance adds four new defined terms associated with the statutory protections — “Abortion-Related Healthcare Conviction,” “Drag-Related Conviction,” “Gender Affirming Care Conviction,” and “Spontaneous Abortion-Related Conviction” — covering out-of-state records connected to abortion care, drag performances, gender-affirming medical care, and pregnancy loss (including miscarriage and stillbirth). These changes were implemented in response to the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision and the numerous states that have criminalized abortion-related healthcare and restricted gender-affirming care, so that people fleeing those laws to California do not face employment discrimination in San Francisco because of resulting out-of-state records.
Substantively, the ordinance clarifies that these newly defined convictions/arrests can never be treated as a “Directly-Related Conviction” that would justify an adverse employment decision, and it explicitly authorizes the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) and Human Rights Commission (HRC) to find a violation where an employer bases an adverse action on one of these four new conviction categories, or fails to conduct the required individualized assessment. It also adds a requirement that employers confirm receipt of an applicant’s rebuttal notice within 14 days, and that if the applicant makes a reasonable factual showing that the proposed adverse action rests solely on a conviction that isn’t “directly related,” the employer must withdraw the adverse action.
Finally, the ordinance significantly raises the financial stakes for violations. Administrative penalties increase from $500/$1,000/$2,000 to $1,000/$2,000/$4,000 for first, second, and subsequent violations, respectively (assessed per affected employee, applicant, or tenant). Liquidated damages available to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil lawsuit increase from $500 to $1,000 per day per person whose rights were violated. The ordinance also makes smaller housekeeping changes, such as switching gendered pronouns (“his or her”) to gender-neutral language (“their”) throughout. The required poster was also recently updated. Employers should take care to update background screen procedures for compliance.
Action Items
- Update background screen procedures to be consistent with the new requirements.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.
- Display the updated Fair Chance Ordinance Notice Poster in a common area frequented by all employees.
San Francisco, CA: Paid Parental Leave Benefits Eligibility Expanded
As of January 1, 2027, San Francisco Ordinance No. 162-26 will reduce the minimum eligibility for employees to receive Paid Parental Leave benefits. Specifically, for employers with 100 or more employees, employees must work at least 90 days before the start of leave, reduced from 180 days, in order to receive benefits. As of January 1, 2028, this requirement will apply to employers with 20 or more employees. San Francisco Paid Parental Leave is not a leave entitlement, but a wage supplement to California Paid Family Leave benefits.
California: Minimum Wage Increase
California recently announced that the new minimum wage for 2027 will be $17.40 per hour. This increase to the state minimum wage also means that the salary test for the widely used executive, administrative and professional exemptions will increase from $70,304 annually ($1,352 per week) to $72,384 annually ($1,392 per week), because the exempt salary minimum is two times the state minimum wage. For more information about the 2027 California minimum wage increase visit the Department of Industrial Relations.
California: Cal/OSHA 2025 Annual Report
On July 23, 2026, the California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation (CHSWC) released its 2025 Annual Report, providing a comprehensive overview of the state’s workplace health and safety and workers’ compensation systems. The report highlights significant legislative and regulatory developments, presents trend data and graphics, and summarizes research on issues of interest to system stakeholders — including recommendations for administrative and legislative improvements to both systems. CHSWC is charged with conducting a continuing examination of California’s workers’ compensation system, the state’s industrial injury and occupational illness prevention programs, and comparable programs in other states. Employers should review the report for developments that may affect workplace safety obligations and workers’ compensation program compliance; the full report is available on the CHSWC website at www.dir.ca.gov.
California: No Cap on Noneconomic Damages Under FEHA
On July 30, 2026, in Glick v. City of Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeal ruled there was no cap on the amount of noneconomic (emotional distress) damages a jury can award for so-called “garden-variety emotional distress” in a discrimination claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). There, the trial court reduced a $13.1 million noneconomic damages award to $375,000. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion and reinstated the jury awards, finding that the jury’s damages awards were not excessive as a matter of law or unsupported by the evidence.
California: Right to Seek Workplace Restraining Order is Unwaivable
On July 6, 2026, in Adelanto Elementary School District v. Michael Krause, the California Court of Appeal largely affirmed a workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) against the district’s former superintendent, for intimidating conduct toward three employees, which escalated after the superintendent was terminated and subsequently ran for and won a seat on the district’s Board of Trustees, during which time his harassment continued. The court held that an employer’s statutory right to seek a WVRO to protect its employees cannot be waived, even where a separation agreement is signed, and found sufficient evidence of a future threat of harassment to support the order. A future threat of violence was not required.
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