The Essential - November 2026 Edition

November 2026 // Volume 15 // Issue 3

FALL UPDATE

November Edition 2026 - The Essential Updates

Typically, this is EBHR’s last issue of the year where we discuss next year’s labor laws on the horizon in California. However, this year, we will publish those updates in a special December edition.

Today, first and foremost, we honor and salute our country’s Veterans – the brave men and women who both serve and have served. Their sacrifice and commitment keep us safe.

Here at EveryBusiness HR Essentials today is also momentous to us as we proudly celebrate our 15th year in business!!

We invite you to visit our newly designed website, www.everybizhr.com, which goes live today – enjoy!

I am immensely grateful for this amazing journey. I extend my heartfelt thanks to you, our clients and friends, for your trust and support. We look forward to continuing to serve you in the years to come.

We hope you find this issue informative, and we’ll see you again next month!

Enjoy, be well and thrive!

Sonya L. Kemp-Willson
Founder and President

A Win for California Employers with Remote Employees

California Employment Laws and Remote Employees: Key Considerations for Employers
A recent California Court of Appeal decision provides important guidance for employers with remote employees working outside California. The court ruled that California employment protections do not automatically extend to employees who live and work in another state, even when their employer is headquartered in California or their employment agreement specifies that California law governs the relationship.

The decision reinforces that the applicability of employment laws depends on the specific statute involved and the employee’s connection to California. It also highlights the importance of understanding where employees work and where key employment decisions are made.

Background of the Case
The case involved an employee who worked remotely from Utah for a California-headquartered technology company. After being arrested in Florida while returning from vacation, the employee was ultimately terminated following the employer’s investigation into his absence and the circumstances surrounding it.

The employee challenged the termination under two California laws that restrict employers from considering certain arrest records that do not result in a conviction.

However, the employment relationship involved several states:

• The employee lived and worked in Utah.
• His direct supervisor worked remotely from Washington.
• The executives who made the termination decision were located in Illinois at the time.
• A California-based HR employee provided input into the decision.

The court determined that the California laws did not apply because the employee's employment and the key decision-making activities lacked a sufficient connection to California. The court also clarified that including a California choice-of-law provision in an employment agreement does not automatically make California employment protections applicable to employees working elsewhere.

What This Means for Employers
The decision offers helpful guidance for employers managing employees across multiple states:

1. An employer's headquarters do not determine which employment laws apply. Having a California headquarters does not automatically subject every remote employee to California employment protections.
2. The employee's work location matters. Where an employee lives and performs their work can be an important factor in determining which state's employment laws apply.
3. The location of decision-makers is relevant. Courts may consider where individuals responsible for hiring, discipline, and termination decisions are physically located when those decisions are made.
4. HR involvement alone may not establish jurisdiction. Input from California-based HR personnel was not enough to establish that the California statutes applied in this case.
5. Choice-of-law provisions have limitations. Specifying California law in an employment agreement does not automatically extend California employment protections to employees who live and work outside the state.
6. Each employment law must be evaluated individually. The decision does not create a blanket exemption from California employment laws for all out-of-state remote employees. The geographic reach of each statute must be assessed separately.

The Caveat
Employers should not interpret the ruling as a blanket exemption from California employment requirements. The applicability of employment protections depends on the specific law, the employee's work location, and the circumstances surrounding the employment decision.

Link to Fisher Phillips

Proposed Changes to California's TRAP Law

California’s new restrictions on so-called Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs) took effect January 1, 2026. Under AB 692, employers generally cannot require employees to repay training-related debts, fees, or other financial penalties simply because the employee leaves the job. The law applies to covered agreements entered into on or after that date and includes limited exceptions for arrangements such as certain transferable education programs, approved apprenticeships, and qualifying bonuses. Employers that use repayment provisions should therefore review their agreements carefully rather than assuming that a training, retention, or incentive arrangement is permissible.

The Legislature subsequently advanced AB 1697, which would give employers additional time to bring their agreements into compliance and address the period between the original effective date and the new legislation. The bill also expands several existing exceptions, including those involving certain incentive or retention payments, government-funded recruitment or retention bonuses, and advances of paid time off. For example, an employer may be able to recover advanced PTO when an employee voluntarily leaves, provided the repayment terms were clearly disclosed in writing, the amount does not exceed 40 hours, and no interest is charged. Certain bonus repayment arrangements also remain permissible, but they must satisfy specific requirements concerning written agreements, attorney consultation, timing, prorating, and the circumstances under which repayment can be required.

For employers, the practical takeaway is that this is not simply a matter of waiting until 2027. Companies should identify any agreements that require employees to repay training costs, bonuses, PTO, relocation expenses, or other payments when employment ends and determine whether those provisions fall within an applicable exception. Even where AB 1697 provides additional protection or flexibility, other California laws may still apply to the arrangement. Employers should also consider whether existing agreements need to be revised and whether their practices are consistent across employees.

Given the changes surrounding AB 692 and AB 1697, a careful review of repayment provisions now can help reduce the risk of relying on an agreement that California law does not permit.

Link to CDF Labor Law

Religious Accommodation and Undue Hardship

A recent article from Fisher Phillips indicated that employers have seen an increase in religious accommodation requests over the past three years following a Supreme Court decision that has made it more difficult for employers to deny such requests. Below is a summary of that article as well as pointers in how to address the issue of “undue hardship.”

Federal law generally requires employers with 15 or more employees to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious practices unless the accommodation would create an undue hardship. The Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy made clear that an employer cannot reject a request simply because it creates an additional expense or inconvenience. The question is whether the accommodation would create a meaningful burden when viewed in the context of that particular employer’s operations, resources, and circumstances. As a result, the same accommodation could create a substantial burden for one business but have little impact on another.

When evaluating a request, employers should look beyond the immediate financial cost. Operational disruptions, employee or customer safety, legal requirements, and other practical consequences may also be relevant. Courts have recognized that employers do not have to violate other laws to accommodate a religious practice, and a legitimate, well-supported safety concern may also be relevant. At the same time, generalized concerns, hypothetical problems, or negative reactions from coworkers are not enough on their own. Employers should also consider how the same accommodation would affect other employees if similar requests were made in the future.

The most important step for employers is to conduct a thoughtful, individualized review and create a clear record of the decision. That means identifying the accommodation requested, determining its actual effect on the business, gathering supporting financial or operational evidence, and applying workplace policies consistently. An employer that allows comparable nonreligious practices may have difficulty explaining why a religious practice creates an unacceptable burden. Ultimately, an undue-hardship determination should be based on specific facts and evidence—not assumptions or generalized inconvenience—and employers should consider applicable EEOC guidance and legal counsel when difficult accommodation issues arise.

Link to Fisher Phillips

NYC Creates Workers' Rights Administration

In what appears to be the first government office of its kind, New York City Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani announced on September 7, 2026, the creation of the Mayor’s Office of Worker Power (MOWP), a new city office focused on worker education, labor organizing, and connections between employees and unions. Deputy Mayor for Economic Justice Julie Su will oversee the office, with former United Auto Workers organizing director Tony Perlstein serving as executive director. The initiative is part of the administration’s broader focus on workplace issues, including wage theft, worker classification, delivery-worker protections, and workplace safety. Rather than functioning primarily as a traditional enforcement agency, MOWP is designed to engage directly with workers and help them understand their rights and available resources.

The office plans to conduct outreach and education through community organizations, workforce centers, libraries, schools, and other public settings. It also intends to bring together workers, unions, worker centers, immigrant workers, and gig and platform workers to identify workplace concerns and inform future policy. Other planned activities include public hearings, research with city agencies, referrals to labor organizations, and policy recommendations. MOWP has identified several areas for particular attention, including emerging workplace technologies, employee misclassification, immigration-related workplace exploitation, and climate-related safety concerns. Its resources also address existing federal, state, and city protections, including rights related to organizing and collective bargaining, retaliation, paid time off, fair scheduling, and protections for delivery workers.

For New York City employers, the creation of MOWP could mean greater employee awareness of workplace rights and increased interaction between workers and labor organizations. As MOWP develops its programs, it will be interesting to see whether the creation of this office will result in workplace regulations or increased organizing activity, or even impact beyond New York City.

Link to Littler

2026 Mid-Year Employment Law Updates You May Have Missed

Although we are closer to the end of 2026 than the middle, below is a handy resource for mid-year state laws that have already gone into effect.

Link to Polsinelli law firm

Recruitment Outlook

The U.S. labor market showed signs of slowing in September, with employers adding only 29,000 jobs, significantly below expectations of roughly 90,000.

For employers, the data points to a more cautious and selective hiring environment. Rather than broad workforce expansion, companies are increasingly prioritizing roles and skills that directly support strategic business needs.

Key hiring implications:

• Selective hiring is becoming the norm: Organizations are focusing on critical roles and capabilities rather than hiring broadly across the workforce.
• Demand remains strong in certain sectors: Healthcare, construction, and manufacturing continue to show hiring activity, with additional seasonal hiring expected ahead of the holidays.
• Skills gaps remain a challenge: Employers continue to struggle to find qualified candidates for skilled positions. Demand is increasing for AI-related capabilities, as well as critical thinking, communication, and emotional intelligence.
• Critical roles take longer to fill: Specialized positions can remain open for extended periods. Average job postings stay open about 61 days, rising to 68 days for healthcare roles and 77 days for engineering positions.
• Retention is increasingly important: With employers holding onto existing employees while slowing new hiring, retaining high-performing talent may become just as important as recruiting.
• Hiring will likely remain targeted: The labor market is shifting from a focus on how many people companies hire to how strategically they hire.
• Labor supply is becoming a constraint: An aging workforce and declining labor supply are limiting the economy's ability to absorb disruptions and may make certain talent shortages more persistent.
• Economic conditions remain a factor: Inflation and interest-rate decisions will continue to influence employers' willingness to invest in expansion and new headcount.

Bottom Line for CEOs
The current labor market favors a precision hiring strategy. Companies should prioritize business-critical positions, move quickly on hard-to-find talent, strengthen retention efforts, and focus on candidates with skills that will remain valuable as technology and AI reshape jobs.

Link to SHRM (membership required)

Questions? Contact Us!

We invite you to reach out to us for support on matters such as reviewing your employee handbook, crafting policies, employee relations issues, benefits management, scheduling and training employees on Harassment Prevention Training, or any other HR matters. Please feel free to reach out to us at ondemandhr@everybizhr.com for support.

Key Dates

This publication is intended to provide general information only and is not intended as a source of legal advice. You should not assume that any information included applies to your specific situation. Accordingly, you should NOT use this information as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed attorney.