California: Arrest Record Protections May Extend Outside California

APPLIES TO As Indicated

EFFECTIVE JUL 30, 2026

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look California employee protections may extend to out-of-state workers where wrongful conduct occurs in California.

Discussion

In Saberin v. Alation, Inc., the California Court of Appeal said that an employer disciplining an employee in another state for an arrest may violate California’s no-arrest-record rule if the decision has enough of a connection to California. Although the facts were too tenuous here, the ruling leaves open the possibility that out-of-state workers may enforce California laws against California employers.

 

Here, the employee lived and worked in Utah, and was arrested in Florida. His sister emailed his work saying that he was injured in an accident. The employer discovered on its own that he was actually arrested. When he was released from detention the next day, his employer terminated his employment. The criminal case against the individual was ultimately dismissed. Labor Code section 432.7 states, in part, that an employer “shall not seek from any source whatsoever, or utilize, as a factor in determining any condition of employment including…termination, …any record of arrest or detention that did not result in conviction.” Similarly, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) says that it is unlawful for an employer with five or more employees to consider an “[a]rrest not followed by conviction” “while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with any application for employment.”

 

This case posed the question: “When do California’s employment laws protect remote workers who are terminated by employers with their “principal offices” in California?” Following California Supreme Court precedent, the court said the answer lies in evaluating what kinds of California connections will suffice to trigger the relevant provisions of California law outside of California. The court said that the arrest record laws serve an important public policy to “prevent the misuse of criminal offender records information” by employers. The Legislature “intended for the statute to cover both workers and employer conduct in the state,” which means that for the laws to extend to non-California workers, the “unlawful conduct at issue must have a sufficient connection to California.”

 

In applying this standard, the court said that the employee and his arrest had no connection to California. He lived and worked remotely from Utah and was arrested in Florida.  His “direct supervisor” worked remotely from the state of Washington.  The decision-makers made the termination decision while in Illinois (even though one of them actually lived in California), and the person who discovered the arrest worked from Utah. The court said that there was an insufficient connection to California in this case to show that wrongful conduct occurred in California that would justify enforcement of California law.

 

Notwithstanding, employers must be wary of this ruling. The analysis could have had the opposite result if the facts showed that the wrongful conduct took place in California, even though the employee was an out-of-state worker. It is unclear from the case what elements are necessary to show where the wrongful conduct took place; however, where the termination decision was made or the actual consideration of or obtaining of the arrest history were considerations in this case. California employers should consider the applicable law when taking adverse action against out-of-state workers.

 

Action Items

1. Review adverse actions against out-of-state workers with legal counsel.
2. Evaluate internal organizational structures to determine potential legal gaps.

 

California: Cal/OSHA Worker Walkaround Rule

On July 1, 2026, Cal/OSHA posted proposed modifications to its California variation of the federal OSHA “worker walkaround rule,” opening a narrow 15-day public comment period through July 16, 2026. This continues a rulemaking process that began with an initial proposal and public hearing on April 1, 2026. Cal/OSHA has justified the rule by citing Labor Code § 50.7(d) and the need to prevent federal withdrawal of state plan approval. The July 1 modifications addressed only minor terminology changes and do not respond to any of the substantive employer-community concerns previously placed on record, signaling Cal/OSHA’s intent to move forward with implementation on a compressed timeline.

 

 

California: New Fact Sheet on Disability Accommodations at Work
On July 8, 2026, California’s Civil Rights Department (CRD) released a “Disability Accommodations at Work“ fact sheet providing guidance on workplace disability protections, including an employee’s right to request an accommodation and an employer’s duty to engage in the interactive process when evaluating such requests. State and federal disability laws require employers who are aware of an individual’s disability to provide reasonable accommodation unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. Notably in California, these protections extend to job applicants, interns, and volunteers. The fact sheet highlights that reasonable accommodations can take many forms, including, but not limited to, allowing service animals, providing readers or interpreters, restructuring job tasks, modifying work schedules, or permitting remote work. The fact sheet is informational only and employers are not required to distribute or display it, but employers should consult legal counsel before denying an accommodation request based on undue hardship.

 

San Francisco, CA: Fair Chance Ordinance Amended

Effective August 10, 2026, amendments to San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance (FCO) expand the list of criminal records employers are prohibited from inquiring into or relying upon when making employment decisions, including out-of-state convictions for conduct that is lawful in California. The amendments add four new categories of impermissible inquiries: Abortion-Related Healthcare Convictions, Drag Convictions, Gender Affirming Care Convictions, and Spontaneous Abortion-Related Convictions. The FCO also strengthens procedural requirements around pre-adverse action notices, now requiring employers to confirm receipt of timely applicant submissions. Covered employers (particularly those operating in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego) should review their hiring processes, job applications, background check disclosures, and adverse action notice templates to ensure compliance with the amended FCO and overlapping state and federal requirements.

 

California: Minimum Wage Increase
Effective January 1, 2027, California’s minimum wage will increase to $17.40/hour for employers not otherwise covered by the state’s fast food or healthcare worker minimum wage laws. The increase was certified on July 31, 2026, based on a 2.99% CPI increase from July 2025 through June 2026, which came in below the 3.5% statutory cap under California Labor Code Section 1182.12. This hourly increase also raises the minimum salary threshold for full-time exempt employees from $70,304 per year ($5,858.67 per month) to $72,384 per year ($6,032 per month), effective the same date. Employers covered by AB 1228 for fast food restaurant employees or SB 525 and SB 159 for healthcare workers are subject to separate thresholds.

 

---

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

Discussion

Connecticut: Arbitrators Must Be Licensed Connecticut Attorneys

As of July 1, 2026, Connecticut Public Act 26-92 requires arbitrators to be a member in good standing of the State Bar, unless all parties to the arbitration agreement sign a written waiver. Any party to the agreement has 14 days (1) after the date of appointment of the arbitrator to object on grounds that the arbitrator fails to meet the requirements, and (2) to object to the arbitrator’s continued role in an arbitration proceeding after receiving actual notice in writing informing the parties that the arbitrator is no longer a member in good standing of the State Bar. Employers should have arbitration agreements reviewed for compliance.

 

Connecticut: Homemaker-Companion Training

Effective January 1, 2027, HB 5143 requires Connecticut homemaker-companion agencies to provide employees with at least eight paid hours of training within 90 days of their start date and annually thereafter. The training must cover topics including communication, maintaining a clean and safe environment, identifying and reporting abuse, neglect, or changes in a client’s condition, distinguishing between medical and nonmedical care, and, where applicable, providing nonmedical services to clients with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia. Agencies must also submit an annual attestation to the state Department of Consumer Protection confirming compliance with these training requirements, starting January 1, 2027.

---

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

Discussion

Georgia: First Offender Act Adds Record-Sealing Enhancements

Effective July 1, 2026, HB 162 amends the state’s First Offender Act to restrict and seal first offender court records at the time the sentence is received rather than when the sentence is fully completed. This means criminal background checks appearing on consumer reports will not and should not include such sealed information. There are limited exceptions when the background check is for criminal justice agency employment, disclosures required by federal or state law, firearm transfer or license determinations, or work that involves interacting with children, the elderly, and vulnerable populations. Georgia employers should be careful not to use such sealed information when evaluating applicants and employees if it inadvertently appears on a criminal records check.

 

---

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

Illinois: Updates to Disparate Impact Liability and Jury Service Compensability

APPLIES TO As Indicated

EFFECTIVE JAN 1, 2027

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look Disparate impact liability is codified under the Illinois Human Rights Act, creating an express state-law basis for challenging facially neutral employment practices that disproportionately affect protected groups. Illinois’ Jury Act is amended to require employers with more than 25 employees to compensate employees at their regular rate of pay for time spent serving on jury duty.

Discussion

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed two bills into law impacting employer obligations related to discrimination liability and jury duty compensation. Both measures are discussed below.

 

Disparate Impact Liability. Effective January 1, 2027, SB 3777, titled the Civil Rights Safeguard Act (CRSA), amends the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) to codify disparate impact liability under state law. Under a disparate impact theory, a facially neutral policy or practice may be unlawful if it disproportionately affects members of a protected group, even absent discriminatory intent, unless the employer can satisfy the applicable statutory defense.

 

While disparate impact liability has long been recognized under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the enactment of the CRSA appears driven, at least in part, by the federal government’s retreat from disparate impact enforcement. Against that backdrop, the CRSA preserves a state-law avenue for challenging employment practices that disproportionately affect protected groups, regardless of whether federal agencies continue to pursue such claims. As a result, employers may see an increase in disparate impact enforcement activity from the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR).

 

Separately, employers should also note that the CRSA may carry unintended consequences for employers that utilize criminal background screening, as it extends disparate impact protections to individuals with arrest or conviction records. Employers should be prepared to demonstrate that any criminal history screening criteria are job related, consistent with business necessity, and not susceptible to a less discriminatory alternative.

 

Jury Service Compensability. Effective January 1, 2027, HB 4844 amends Illinois’ Jury Act to require employers with more than 25 employees to compensate employees at their regular rate of pay for time spent serving on jury duty. This represents a significant departure from prior law, which expressly provided that employers were not required to compensate employees for that time. Notably, the amended law does not define certain key terms like “regular rate of pay” and “time serving on jury duty,” which may create uncertainty for employers, absent regulatory interpretation or guidance.

 

Action Items

1. Review employment policies and practices for compliance with state anti-discrimination, harassment, and retaliation requirements.
2. Consult with legal counsel on potential disparate impact exposure.
3. Evaluate criminal background screening procedures for compliance with CRSA requirements.
4. Review and update jury leave and payroll procedures for compliance, as applicable.
5. Monitor legislative and administrative guidance for clarification under expanded Jury Act.
6. Have appropriate personnel trained on the updated requirements.

 

Illinois: Amendments to Pay Transparency Rules

APPLIES TO As Indicated

EFFECTIVE    JUN 18, 2026

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look The Illinois Department of Labor adopted comprehensive amendments to the rules implementing the state’s pay transparency law. The amendments define “pay scale and benefits,” “benefits,” and “job posting,” and impose new recordkeeping obligations for employers. The rules confirm that remote and hybrid workers with ties to Illinois may be covered, and they introduce a much steeper penalty structure for job posting violations.

Discussion

On June 18, 2026, the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) adopted comprehensive amendments to the administrative rules implementing the pay transparency requirements of the Illinois Equal Pay Act of 2003. Since January 1, 2025, employers with 15 or more employees nationwide have been required to disclose pay scale and benefits information in job postings for Illinois-based positions and to notify current employees of promotional opportunities within 14 days of posting them externally.

 

New Definitions. The 2026 amendments define several key terms:

 

• “Pay scale and benefits” now means the wage or salary, or wage or salary range, along with a general description of benefits and other compensation, including bonuses, stock options, or other incentives the employer reasonably expects to offer for the position.
• “Benefits” is defined to include health care, retirement benefits, and paid time off, including sick leave, parental leave, and vacation, as well as any other benefit reportable for federal tax purposes, though minor incidental perks are excluded.
• “Job posting” is defined as a written announcement seeking to hire or accept applications for a specific position, which means general recruitment announcements that do not reference a specific role, such as a “help wanted” sign, fall outside the requirement.

 

Recordkeeping. The amendments also impose new recordkeeping obligations, requiring employers to create and retain records showing the pay scale and benefits included in each job posting, along with records of promotional opportunities communicated to current employees. These records must reflect the posting’s content as it appeared at the time of publication and must be kept for at least five years, or longer if they relate to an ongoing investigation or enforcement action.

 

Remote and Hybrid Workers. The amendments confirm that the law’s reach extends beyond employees physically based in Illinois. Coverage now includes postings for positions performed at least partly in Illinois, as well as positions performed outside the state but reporting to an Illinois-based supervisor, office, or worksite. To determine whether a remote or hybrid position is covered, the state will weigh several factors, including how much of the work is performed in Illinois compared to elsewhere, whether any Illinois-based work is only temporary or occasional, and whether work performed outside Illinois involves the same duties as work performed in Illinois.

 

Penalties. The amendments introduce a more aggressive penalty structure for job posting violations. For active postings, a first violation carries a $500 penalty with a 14-day period to correct it, a second violation carries a $2,500 penalty with a seven-day cure period, and a third or subsequent violation carries a $10,000 penalty with no opportunity to cure. Once an employer reaches a third violation, it becomes subject to automatic penalties without any cure period for five years, and that five-year period restarts with any further violation.

 

Action Items

1. Review job postings and update templates for compliance with pay transparency requirements.
2. Update recordkeeping practices to retain job posting and promotional opportunity records for the required period.
3. Consult with legal counsel on the coverage of certain remote or hybrid roles under Illinois law.
4. Have appropriate personnel trained on pay transparency requirements.

 

Illinois: Third-Party AI Audits and Whistleblower Protections Enacted

As part of the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act (SB 315), effective January 1, 2028, or 90 days after an AI developer first qualifies as a large frontier developer (e.g., AI frontier model developers with collective annual gross revenues of $500 million in a calendar year), large frontier developers must use a third party to conduct annual independent audits of their AI models to assess the safety of such models and whether they pose “catastrophic risk.” This level of risk is defined as a foreseeable and material risk that the frontier model will materially contribute to the death of, or serious injury to, more than 50 people or more than $1 billion in damage to, or loss of, property arising from a single incident involving creation or release of a weapon, the frontier model evading its controls, or engaging in conduct that could result in the crimes of murder, assault, extortion, or theft. In addition, effective January 1, 2027, a frontier developer cannot retaliate against an employee who discloses information based on their reasonable belief that the frontier developer’s activities pose a specific and substantial danger to the public from a catastrophic risk or that the frontier developer has violated the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act. Frontier developers are also required to provide employees with notice of their whistleblower rights under the law.

 

---

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