• Legislative Bills That Could Redefine California Workplaces in 2026

    By Fred W. Alvarez, Hannah L. Jones, Daniel M. Bruggebrew, Allison Moser, Paige B. Pulley, Hannah Withers, and Stacey Zartler

    California is once again at the forefront of workplace regulation, with a slate of 2026 bills that would significantly expand employee rights and increase employer compliance obligations. From limits on AI in employment decisions, to restrictions on stay-or-pay agreements, expanded pay data reporting, and new immigration-related protections, these measures highlight the state’s aggressive approach to reshaping the employer-employee relationship.

    Governor Newsom has until October 12, 2025 to sign or veto these bills. Below is a table summarizing the most significant proposals currently on his desk as well as a deeper dive into each bill. We will provide follow-up guidance once final enactments are known to help employers prepare for compliance. Unless otherwise noted, any new laws signed will take effect on January 1, 2026.

    Bill Topic Key Requirements / Changes
    SB 7 Limits on AI in Employment Decisions Prohibits exclusive use of AI tools in hiring, promotion, or discipline; requires notice, data access, and appeal rights.
    AB 692 Ban on Most Stay-or-Pay Agreements Makes most repayment or retention provisions unenforceable; limited exceptions for tuition or education costs.
    AB 1136 Expanded Leave for Immigration Proceedings Provides up to 12 months of unpaid leave for detention and 5 unpaid days for immigration-related matters.
    SB 464 Broader Pay Data Reporting Expands demographic reporting to include sexual orientation; requires separate recordkeeping.
    SB 642 Pay Scale in Job Postings Clarifies definition of “pay scale”; extends lawsuit deadline to 3 years.
    SB 590 Paid Family Leave for “Chosen Family” Extends PFL benefits to care for a “designated person,” aligning with CFRA.
    SB 513 Personnel Records Must Include
    Training Data
    Adds training, education, and certification details to required personnel records.
    AB 1326 Employee Right to Wear Face Masks Employers may not prohibit mask use unless it poses a safety hazard; brief removal allowed for identification.
    SB 294 “Know Your Rights” Notice Requires new workplace notice by Feb. 1, 2026; $500/day penalty per employee for noncompliance.

     

    Limits on AI in Employment Decisions (SB 7): Under California’s SB 7, employers may not rely exclusively on AI (referred to in the bill as automated decision systems, or ADS) to make key employment decisions such as hiring, promotion, discipline, or termination. ADS are defined as AI-driven or algorithmic tools that make, or materially assist in making, decisions that significantly affect employees. Examples include resume-screening software, video interview analysis tools, chatbot applicant pre-screening platforms, promotion recommendation systems, and certain types of employee monitoring programs.

    Employers that use ADS to assist in employment-related decisions—but not as the sole basis—will be subject to new notice and disclosure obligations if this law takes effect. For applicants, employers must disclose the use of ADS and provide information about the underlying algorithms as part of the application process. For current employees, employers must give at least 30 days’ advance notice in a “standalone written communication” before adopting any new ADS for disciplinary or promotion purposes. In both contexts, employees and applicants must be given access to ADS-related data and the right to appeal any employment decision made with the assistance of ADS.

    Importantly, SB 7 builds on the AI regulations adopted by the California Civil Rights Council (CRC) in October 2025, extending notice and disclosure obligations to both current and prospective employees. For additional background on the CRC regulations, see our prior client alert here.

    Failure to comply with SB 7 may result in enforcement by the Labor Commissioner or private civil actions, with potential remedies including actual damages, civil penalties of up to $500 per violation, and recovery of attorneys’ fees.

    Ban on Most Stay-or-Pay Agreements (AB 692): Employers have long relied on signing bonuses, retention bonuses, or repayment obligations for training, tuition, or immigration costs to encourage employees to stay in the job for a set period of time. These arrangements come with a price tag for employees who leave early: repayment.

    Under AB 692, which would apply to contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026, most of these “stay-or-pay” arrangements will be prohibited. The law not only renders such agreements unenforceable but also exposes employers to potential employee lawsuits seeking damages or other remedies, with penalties including the greater of actual damages or a $5,000 minimum per violation.

    While broad in scope, AB 692 does carve out limited exceptions. For example, repayment provisions for tuition costs related to transferable educational credentials may still be enforceable if they meet detailed statutory requirements. Similarly, signing and retention bonus agreements remain permissible, but only if they are set out in a standalone agreement that complies with highly technical conditions.

    Expanded Leave Rights for Immigration Proceedings (AB 1136): In response to heightened federal immigration enforcement activity, including ICE raids and the current administration’s restrictive stance on immigration, California has advanced new protections for employees facing immigration or deportation proceedings.

    Under the proposed law, employers must place an employee on unpaid leave for up to 12 months if the employee is detained or incarcerated due to pending immigration or deportation proceedings. If the employee is released during that period and provides valid work authorization, the employer must reinstate the employee to their former position without loss of seniority.

    The bill also requires employers to provide up to five unpaid days off within a 12-month period for employees to address matters related to immigration status, work authorization, or visa status. This includes attending appointments, interviews, adjudications, legal proceedings, detentions, or any other required meetings related to the employee’s immigration situation.

    Broader Pay Data Reporting Requirements (SB 464): SB 464 expands California’s existing pay data reporting obligations for private employers with more than 100 employees. Employers must now collect and maintain demographic information used for reporting purposes separately from employees’ personnel records. The law also broadens the scope of required reporting. In addition to race, ethnicity, and sex, employers must now report on employees’ sexual orientation (if voluntarily disclosed).

    Clearer Rules for Pay Scale in Job Postings (SB 642): California law already requires employers to include “pay scale” information in job postings, but the term has long been a source of confusion. SB 642 attempts to clarify the term by defining “pay scale” as a “good-faith estimate” of the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire. The bill also extends the statute of limitations for violations, giving employees three years (instead of two) to bring a lawsuit for pay equity violations.

    Paid Family Leave Expanded to Chosen Family (SB 590): Beginning July 1, 2028, if SB 590 is signed by the governor, California’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) program will expand to provide wage replacement benefits when employees take time off to care for a “designated person.” This change is intended to support Californians who rely on chosen family members for care. The California Family Rights Act (CFRA) already provides job-protected leave to care for a designated person. SB 590 aligns the PFL program with CFRA by extending wage replacement benefits to cover the same category of leave.

    Personnel Records Must Include Training Data (SB 513): SB 513 expands the definition of personnel records relating to an employee’s performance to expressly include education and training records. Employers that maintain such records will be required to ensure they include specified information, such as the type of training, date(s) completed, and any certifications or credentials earned, as part of the employee’s personnel file.

    Employee Right to Wear Face Masks (AB 1326): AB 1326 would prohibit employers from preventing employees from wearing face masks in the workplace, unless a mask would create a safety hazard. The bill also permits employers to require employees to briefly remove a face covering while at the worksite for identification purposes.

    Know Your Rights Notice (SB 294): Employers are required to distribute a new “Know Your Rights” notice to all employees by February 1, 2026. Failure to comply may result in penalties of $500 per employee, per day, up to a maximum of $10,000.

    The Coblentz Employment team is available to answer any questions you may have about the impact of these regulations. We will provide follow-up guidance once final enactments are known.

  • Coming to a Major Transit Stop Near You: Upzoning Under SB 79

    Update: Governor Newsom signed SB 79 into law on October 10, 2025

    California Legislature Passes New Bill to Encourage More Homes Near Transit

    Capping off a session that achieved major CEQA reforms for housing development, the California Legislature has sent new transit-oriented housing legislation to the Governor’s desk, which is expected to be signed by the October 12 deadline. Senate Bill 79, the “Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act” (Wiener), effectively upzones sites near high-quality transit to create more housing opportunities. Below we summarize SB 79 and its eligibility requirements.

    Key Points

    • The bill affects cities in eight urbanized counties that are well-served by transit.
    • In these areas, the bill allows building height limits of 55 to 95 feet and density of at least 30 units per acre, depending on proximity to and quality of transit.
    • Projects over 10 units must meet basic inclusionary housing requirements.
    • No specific labor requirements apply unless the building is over 85 feet in height.
    • The bill expands eligibility for CEQA-exempt streamlining under SB 423, and lowers the inclusionary housing requirement.
    • Local jurisdictions have options to exempt certain sites from the bill, or adopt an alternative plan that achieves the same development capacity.

    What projects qualify for SB 79?

    SB 79 applies to projects in proximity to a “transit-oriented development” (TOD) stop, which is:

    • A “major transit stop” (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3); and
    • In an “urban transit county,” defined as a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations. In the Bay Area, this means San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties – with Contra Costa County notably omitted – as well as Sacramento, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties.

    Once signed, SB 79 will become effective on July 1, 2026, unless a local jurisdiction adopts an HCD- approved ordinance or local transit-oriented development alternative plan before then.

    What are the requirements for a “transit-oriented housing development”?

    • The project must be a “housing development project” as defined in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
    • The site must be zoned residential, mixed or commercial, and be within at least ½ mile of a transit-oriented development stop.
    • The project must include:
      • At least five dwelling units;
      • Density of either 30 dwelling units per acre, or the minimum density required under local zoning; and
      • Average total floor space per unit cannot exceed 1,750 square feet.
    • Projects with more than 10 units must include housing affordable to households at the following levels based on Area Median Incomes, unless the local ordinance mandates a higher percentage:
      • 7% of units: extremely low income households;
      • 10% of units: very low income households; or
      • 13% of units: lower income households.
    • The project cannot be located on a site that has had more than two rent-controlled units within the past seven years.
    • The project must comply with height, noise, and safety standards of adopted airport land use plan or zone, and fire safety standards.
    • Projects are also able to take advantage of density bonus concessions, depending on the minimum density achieved for a given project.
    • Finally, no labor requirements apply to buildings 85 feet in height or less. For any building over 85 feet in height, the project must comply with prevailing wage requirements and must use a skilled and trained workforce.

    SB 79 also allows local transit agencies to develop on land owned by the agency, subject to specific requirements, including paying prevailing wages and using a skilled and trained workforce.

    What development standards apply to projects under SB 79?

    SB 79 limits a local agency’s ability to restrict certain development standards for transit-oriented housing developments. It also distinguishes between types of TOD stops based on the type of transit that serves the stop.

    • Tier 1 TOD stops are served by heavy rail transit or very high-frequency commuter rail (such as BART and Caltrain).
    • Tier 2 TOD stops are those that are not Tier 1, and are served by light rail transit, high-frequency commuter rail, or major bus service (such as San Francisco Muni; not including Amtrak or the California High-Speed Rail).

    Under SB 79, local agencies cannot set limits below the following standards depending on the project’s proximity to the TOD stop:


    Are projects under SB 79 eligible for streamlined approval?

    Projects under SB 79 may be eligible for streamlined ministerial approval under SB 35/423, which provides a streamlined ministerial approval process for developments in localities that have not made sufficient progress toward housing targets, with certain significant changes that will make that process attractive for more projects. For eligible projects, SB 35/423 mandates a very fast process (approximately 90 to 180 days, depending on project size) and one that is exempt from CEQA. However, in most jurisdictions, projects are required to include 50% low income units to qualify for SB 35/423, and as a result, it has primarily been used by 100% affordable projects.

    SB 79 makes two significant changes to this framework. First, eligibility does not depend on whether the jurisdiction has met its housing allocation targets, meaning that it can be used in every jurisdiction where SB 79 applies, regardless of the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment compliance. Second, the affordability level for all projects is 10% very low income (rental projects) or 10% low income (for-sale projects). While SB 35/SB 423 contains a number of other site criteria, most urban infill sites will qualify.

    If a project does not seek streamlined approval, it will be reviewed under the jurisdiction’s standard development review process and the HAA.

    How does HAA compliance work under SB 79?

    A proposed housing development project that is consistent with the requirements of SB 79 and applicable “objective” standards as defined under the HAA is “deemed consistent” under the HAA.

    Starting on January 1, 2027, a local agency that denies a housing development project in a high resource area will be presumed to be in violation of the HAA.

    Can local agencies exempt areas within their jurisdiction from SB 79?

    SB 79 also provides avenues for local agencies to exempt certain areas from SB 79. Local agencies can:

    • Exclude certain sites from SB 79 eligibility, including if there is no walking path of less than a mile connecting to the TOD stop.
    • Exempt an area as an “industrial employment hub,” as defined in the statute, therefore excluding housing as a permitted use on the site.
    • Adopt a “transit-oriented development alternative plan,” as defined in the statute, that generally retains the same development capacity that would be available under SB 79.

    Like other recent legislation intended to expand housing development opportunities in California, SB 79 is complex and there will undoubtedly be bumps along the way in its implementation. Please reach out to the Coblentz real estate team with any questions about this important new legislation.

     

    Categories: Blogs