In this episode of California Employment News, Weintraub Tobin shareholder Meagan Bainbridge and associate Nikki Mahmoudi discuss the key provisions every legally compliant handbook should address.

In this episode, they cover:

  • Foundational provisions, including at-will employment and handbook disclaimers
  • Harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and accommodation policies
    Wage and hour requirements, leave rights, and workplace expectations
  • Employee acknowledgements and the importance of annual handbook reviews

Listen for a practical overview of how an updated handbook can help California employers promote consistency, communicate expectations, and address workplace issues before they become larger disputes.

Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel or listen to this podcast episode here.

Subscribe to Podcast
Subscribe on YouTube

As we indicated in our June 4, 2026 article, certain employers may soon be relieved of the obligation to file EEO-1 Reports, as well as other reports (“EEO Data Reports”), with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). On July 21, 2026, the EEOC voted 2-1 to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to end the long-required demographic data collection and reporting by covered employers. Currently covered employers are required to file annual reports with the EEOC summarizing aggregate data on their employees’ race and sex to assist in evaluating potential discriminatory practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 

The EEOC’s NPRM is a 63-page proposal published in the Federal Register. In the NPRM, the EEOC determined that the EEO Data Reports are inconsistent with equal employment opportunity law, may raise constitutional concerns, and collect data that is not narrowly tailored or necessary to enforce anti-discrimination statutes. According to the EEOC, under Title VII, the agency is not required to impose these reporting obligations and may eliminate them when they are inconsistent with the law, not useful, or counter to enforcement priorities. The NPRM concludes that any limited value of the reports is outweighed by the significant burdens they impose on employers and on the EEOC — particularly because employers must submit them annually without any specific indication of a potential violation. 

The NPRM will undergo a 30-day public comment period, after which the EEOC will review any feedback before voting on a final decision. 

The EEOC’s press release, with a hyperlink to the NPRM, can be found here:

https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-proposes-rescission-annual-race-and-sex-reporting-requirements

In a closely watched decision for California employers, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a wage and hour class action against ABM Aviation, Inc., on the grounds that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion provides a useful roadmap for navigating common challenges to arbitration agreements, particularly in light of prior cases like Cook v. USC.

Continue Reading 9th Circuit Upholds Arbitration Agreement Despite Waiver of Representative PAGA Claims

Wage and hour compliance remains a major source of risk for California employers. In this episode of California Employment News, Weintraub Tobin Associate Nikki Mahmoudi and Shareholder Ryan Abernethy discuss common issues involving meal and rest breaks, rounding, regular rate calculations, and employee attestations.

Listen for a clear breakdown of common wage and hour mistakes California employers should review to help reduce compliance risk.

Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel or listen to this podcast episode here.

Subscribe to Podcast
Subscribe on YouTube