We are excited to announce the addition of William “Bill” Abbott to the White Brenner LLP team.

Bill has been in practice for over 45 years and brings a wealth of knowledge on land use, real estate, environmental, and local government matters.

We believe his counsel will be an invaluable asset to both our clients and our attorneys. Learn more about Bill’s background, credentials, and experience.

Learn more about changes made to the Brown Act by SB 707 through the video or keep reading for more information.

Through SB 707, the California Legislature amended many sections of the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law. Local agencies should review and update their meeting policies to ensure compliance with these changes. Starting January 1, 2026, the following rules apply to all local agencies, in many cases clarifying existing areas of uncertainty related to the Brown Act:

• Use of social media: Legislative body members may communicate with the public on social media, but a majority of members may not discuss or decide agency business with each other online. (Gov., Code § 54952.2(b)(3).)
• Disability accommodations: Legislative body members may attend meetings remotely as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This type of remote attendance counts as if the individual attended in person, and standard teleconferencing rules do not apply. (§ 54953(c).)
• Remote participation: “Just cause” and “emergency” rules for attending meetings remotely are now combined under just cause; additional reasons for attending remotely are now available. Standard teleconferencing rules do apply for just cause participation, including travel for official agency business and military service obligations. (§ 54953.8.3.)
• Executive compensation actions: Before approving pay for agency executives, department heads, or similar officials, the legislative body must give a verbal report in an open meeting. (§ 54953(d).)
• Brown Act distribution: Agencies must provide a copy of the Brown Act to all elected and appointed members of legislative bodies. (§ 54952.7.)
• Disruptive conduct: Procedures to remove disruptive individuals may now be used for people participating in meetings remotely, not just those attending in person. (§ 54957.95.)

SB 707 also imposes new requirements on “eligible legislative bodies” to support public participation and remote meeting access. Eligible bodies include city councils with a population of more than 30,000, city councils in counties with a population of more than 600,000, county boards of supervisors with a population of more than 30,000, and certain large special districts. Eligible bodies must allow remote public participation, adopt a plan for handling remote meeting platform disruptions, and take steps to encourage participation from underrepresented and non-English-speaking communities by translating agendas and websites into applicable languages. (§ 54953.4.)

This alert addresses only the major changes implemented by SB 707. Please contact White Brenner LLP at (916) 468-0950, Douglas White at doug@whitebrennerllp.com, or Nubia Goldstein at nubia@whitebrennerllp.com if you would like to discuss any of the changes outlined above, their applicability to your agency, or any other questions related to the Brown Act.

Watch a summary of 2025-2026 labor and employment updates with White Brenner LLP attorney, Will Creger, or read a full breakdown of the legislative changes below.

Client Alert: California’s Latest Employment Laws Update Pay Transparency, Reinforce Equal Pay Rights, and Restrict Certain Contract Practices

1. SB 642: Pay Equity Enforcement Act

SB 642 expands both California’s Pay Transparency Law and the Equal Pay Act, amending Labor Code sections 432.3 and 1197.5.

A. Amendments to Labor Code § 432.3 (Pay Transparency Law)

Labor Code § 432.3 was enacted to reduce wage inequality by requiring employers to base compensation decisions on a position’s market value rather than an applicant’s prior salary.

Under the current law, employers must provide job applicants with the “pay scale,” defined as the salary or hourly wage range the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position. SB 642 revises the definition of “pay scale” to require employers to disclose “A good faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage range that the employer expects to pay upon hire.”

As a result, employers may no longer provide broad salary ranges and must instead offer a specific, good-faith estimate of expected starting pay.

B. Amendments to the Equal Pay Act (Labor Code § 1197.5)

Expanded Definition of “Sex”

SB 642 updates statutory language by replacing “opposite sex” with “another sex,” reflecting recognition of more than two genders for purposes of pay equity protections.

Expanded Definition of “Wages”

The statute now expressly includes all forms of compensation, including, but not limited to:

• Overtime
• Profit sharing and bonuses
• Benefits
• Stock options
• Life insurance
• Vacation and holiday pay
• “Cleaning or gasoline allowances”

As a result, wage comparisons for equal pay purposes must look to total compensation, not base salary alone.

Expanded Statute of Limitations and Accrual

• Statute of limitations increased from 2 to 3 years for non-willful violations.
• Employees may look back up to 6 years under a continuing violation theory.
• A cause of action now accrues when:
  • the unlawful pay practice is adopted,
  • an employee becomes subject to it, or
  • an employee is affected by it.

Thus, SB 642 effectively creates a new cause of action with each paycheck.

At present, there is no clear indication the Legislature intended the expanded “wages” definition to apply to job posting requirements under the Pay Transparency Law. Whether the expanded definition of “wages” under the Equal Pay Act affects an employer’s obligation to estimate the “wage range” under the Pay Transparency Law remains subject to DLSE interpretation.

2. SB 692: Employment Contract Repayment / “Stay-or-Pay” Prohibition

Effective January 1, 2026, SB 692 prohibits most contractual provisions requiring employees to repay money, incur fees, or face collection actions when they leave employment. Such agreements are void as a matter of public policy, subject to narrow exceptions. Violations subject the employer to actual damages or a minimum of $5,000 per employee, whichever is greater, in addition to injunctive relief and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Signing and Retention Bonus Exception

A limited exception applies to “claw back” provisions related to unearned signing or retention bonuses at the outset of employment, provided strict criteria are met:

• The repayment terms are set forth in a separate agreement from any employment agreement.
• The bonus must be discretionary or unearned and not tied to specific job performance.
• The employee must receive at least 5 business days’ notice and the opportunity to consult with an attorney.
• The repayment obligation must be prorated and interest-free.
• The retention period may not exceed two years.
• The repayment may be triggered only by voluntary resignation or termination for misconduct.
• Employees must have the option to defer receipt of the bonus until the retention period ends.

Tuition Reimbursement Exception

Claw back provisions related to tuition reimbursement are permitted if:

• The contract is offered separately from any employment contract.
• Credentials are transferable and not a condition of employment, and
• The repayment amount is specified in advance and does not exceed the cost to the employer
• The repayment amount is prorated and without an accelerated payment schedule
• Repayment is triggered only by voluntary resignation or termination for misconduct.

SB 692 does not define “employment contract” or “condition of employment,” creating some uncertainty.

The statute is not retroactive, but employers should review and update agreements to address common clawback provisions, such as those for bonuses, tuition reimbursement, and moving expenses.

3. Other Notable 2025 Legislative Updates

SB 261: Enhanced Penalties for Unpaid Wage Judgments

Imposes triple damages, attorneys’ fees, and public disclosure penalties for employers that fail to satisfy wage-related judgments. effective January 1, 2026.

SB 294: Workplace Know Your Rights Act

Effective January 1, 2026, SB 294 requires employers to provide employees and, where applicable, union representatives with an annual stand-alone written notice of workers’ rights, including immigration-related rights. The DIR will publish a model notice by January 1, 2026.

Additionally, employers must allow employees to designate an emergency contact by March 30, 2026, and must notify that contact if the employee is arrested or detained at the worksite.

AB 406: Judicial Proceedings Leave Expansion

Effective January 1, 2026, SB 406 expands protections for employees who take time off due to certain legal proceedings.

• Amends Labor Code 246.5 to allow employees to use paid sick leave for jury duty and to appear in court as a witness.
• Amends Government Code § 12945.8 and Labor Code §230 et seq. to expand job-protected leave for victims of certain serious crimes and their family members, allowing unpaid time off to attend judicial proceedings and use of accrued leave balances.

SB 464: Pay Data Reporting Requirements

Effective January 1, 2026, employers must store demographic data collected for pay reporting separately from personnel files. Courts are required to impose penalties on employers who fail to file the required pay data report when requested by the Civil Rights Department.

SB 590: Paid Family Leave Expansion

Amends Unemployment Insurance Code § 3302 to provide that, commencing July 1, 2028, employees caring for a seriously ill “designated person,” including individuals whose relationship is considered “equivalent” to family, will have access to state-paid temporary disability insurance benefits. This change aligns state disability benefits with employees’ existing right to take leave to care for a “designated person.”

SB 513: Expanded Personnel File Access

Effective October 2025, employees’ inspection rights under Labor Code § 1198.5 will expressly include access to education and training records.

SB 617: CA WARN Act Amendments

Requires more detailed mass-layoff notices, including information about employees’ eligibility for public assistance.

SB 648: Wage Theft Enforcement Expansion

Authorizes the Labor Commissioner to investigate, cite, and litigate wage theft cases, including those involving unlawfully withheld gratuities.

Minimum Wage Increase

Effective January 1, 2026, California’s minimum wage increases to $16.90 per hour, meaning the minimum salary threshold for exempt employees increases to $70,304 annually.

For any questions regarding these legislative updates, as well as their implications, please contact Will Creger at william@whitebrennerllp.com or the White Brenner LLP office at (916) 468-0950.

Congratulations to White Brenner LLP Partner, Barbara A. Brenner in her recognition by Best Lawyers® for the 7th year in a row! Her dedication has earned her a selection in The Best Lawyers in America®, 30th edition, for her exceptional work in Environmental Law and Natural Resources Law.

Learn more about Best Lawyers® methodology at bestlawyers.com and view Barbara’s work at whitebrennerllp.com.

Proposition 64 was passed by Californians in 2016 for the legalization of adult-use cannabis. Among the regulations contained in Proposition 64 is a prohibition of licensed cannabis businesses from “advertis[ing] or market[ing] on a billboard or similar advertising device located on an Interstate Highway or on a State Highway which crosses the California border.”

The Bureau of Cannabis Control (“BCC”), the lead agency in charge of enforcing the law, was given the challenge of interpreting this provision. In light of First Amendment protections for commercial speech, coupled with the federal ban on cannabis, the BCC chose to ban cannabis advertising only on limited portions of highways. Specifically, Section 5040(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations broadly prevents advertising the sale of cannabis or cannabis products “within a 15-mile radius of the California border on an Interstate Highway or on a State Highway that crosses the California border.”

This regulation was challenged by Matthew Farmer (“Farmer”), arguing that the interpretation by BCC was in conflict with the language of Proposition 64. Farmer argued that the current regulations unnecessarily expose him and his teenage daughter to cannabis advertising. The San Luis Obispo Superior Court granted the petition and ordered the BCC to meet and confer with Farmer to propose an order to withdraw the regulation. This will result in a stricter ban on all cannabis advertising on California Highways.

However, there is an open question regarding how strict the ban will be. The terms “Interstate Highway” and “State Highway” are not defined in the statute, so it is not clear which portions of the highway the updated regulations will encompass. In addition, the term “advertising” is expansive and includes speech that is not commercial in nature, which other states have made carve outs for. These provisions will likely be given more specific meanings after the Farmer decision, while maintaining compliance with the First Amendment.

The BCC was ordered to notify licensees to stop selling space for cannabis advertising and to take down existing ads on roads that cross state borders. As of now, this obligation only affects licensees and does not apply to cities. However, cities should be aware of the BCC’s directive in the event there are any enforcement obligations imposed on them.

For any questions regarding the BCC’s directive and its implications, please contact Douglas L. White at doug@whitebrennerllp.com, Nubia Goldstein at nubia@whitebrennerllp.com, or the White Brenner LLP office at (916) 468-0950.

Congratulations to White Brenner LLP Partner Barbara A. Brenner! For the sixth year in a row, Barbara has been recognized by Best Lawyers® for her work in Environmental Law and Natural Resources Law with a selection in The Best Lawyers in America® 2023 Edition.

Best Lawyers is a guide to reviewed and recommended attorneys located in 78 countries around the world and is considered to be one of the oldest and most respected peer review publications in the legal industry. Their purely peer review methodology guarantees that attorneys are selected for this honor based upon confidential surveys conducted by their peers.

To learn more about the Best Lawyers® methodology, visit bestlawyers.com.

On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21 (the “Order”) to roll back certain provisions of the Governor’s COVID-19-related executive orders. As detailed below, the Order will lift many of the executive orders that have affected public agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Executive Order N-25-20 suspended the work hour limitations for retired annuitants who work in CalPERS-covered service during the COVID-19 state of emergency. Under Executive Order N-25-20, any hours worked by a retired annuitant to ensure adequate staffing during the state of emergency will not be counted toward the 960-hour limit for the fiscal year. The 180-day break in service requirement and the 60-day separation in service requirement were also suspended. Executive Order N-25-20 will expire on June 30, 2021.

Executive Order N-28-20 granted local governments full authority to suspend or limit all residential and commercial evictions during the emergency period, where the eviction is either (1) due to non-payment of rent or a foreclosure due to a substantial decrease in household or business income (whether through layoffs, reduced working hours, or a downturn in business), or (2) due to substantial out-of-pocket medical expenses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or any documented local, state, or federal government response to the pandemic. Executive Order N-28-20 will expire on September 30, 2021.

Executive Order N-29-20 authorized local and state legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and make the public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public who wish to observe and address the local or state body. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Executive Order N-29-20 has allowed public agencies to hold meetings by teleconference while satisfying all Brown Act requirements as long as public agencies meet the provisions of the Executive Order N-29-20. Executive Order N-29-20 will remain effect until September 30, 2021. After September 30, 2021, public agencies will need to follow all requirements of the open meeting laws found in the Brown Act, including the requirements to have a quorum of the members of the legislative body participate within the boundaries of the public agency, the identification of a teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting, and an opportunity for the public to participate in person at each teleconference location.

Executive Order N-34-20 suspended the timeframes for public hearings required by political subdivisions that are in the process of changing from an at-large method of election to district elections, until social distancing measures are lifted in the jurisdiction.  After that time, those jurisdictions must hold the required hearings in a manner that allows sufficient advance public notice and the opportunity to participate in the postponed hearings. Executive Order N-34-20 will expire on June 30, 2021.

Executive Order N-35-20 allowed all members of a local legislative body or state body to receive updates from federal, state, and local officials, including simultaneous updates, concerning the impact of COVID-19, the government’s response to COVID-19, and other aspects relevant to the declared state of emergency. Executive Order N-35-20 also allowed local body members to ask questions of those officials, to stay apprised of emergency operations and the impact of those operations on their constituents. This provision of Executive N-35-20 will expire on September 30, 2021.

Executive Orders N-35-20 and N-71-20 extended the deadline to file a claim against local governments under the Government Claims Act (Government Code section 911 et seq.) by a total of 120 days, and the time within which the government agency may act upon the claim was also extended by a total of 120 days. Per the Order, any claims accruing before June 30, 2021 will remain subject to the 120-day extension.

Executive Order N-42-20 prohibited water systems in California from discontinuing water service for residential customers and small businesses in a critical infrastructure sector for non-payment of bills. The Order extends the prohibition until September 30, 2021, at which point Executive Order N-42-20 will expire. Public water systems may thereafter discontinue water service for nonpayment of a bill, provided they follow the requirements of their discontinuation of service policies and applicable laws and regulations, including the Water Shutoff Protection Act (SB 998).

For any questions regarding the Order and its implications, please contact Douglas L. White at doug@whitebrennerllp.com, Nubia Goldstein at nubia@whitebrennerllp.com, or the White Brenner LLP office at (916) 468-0950.

As Californians get vaccinated, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is preparing to move beyond the Blueprint for a Safer Economy on June 15th. Ahead of the reopening date, the CDPH has released more details regarding restrictions after June 15th. On that date, all industries may return to usual operations, with limited exceptions for Mega Events, as described below. After June 15th, there will be no capacity limitations or physical distancing restrictions. The CDPH will update its Guidance for Face Coverings on June 15th, but masks are expected to only be required on public transportation and in youth, healthcare, and high-risk congregate settings.

Although there will no longer be capacity limits or physical distancing requirements for businesses, employers will continue to be subject to the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards.

Mega Events are defined as events with large crowds greater than 5,000 (for indoor events) and 10,000 (for outdoor events). Indoor Mega Events include events such as conventions, conferences, expos, and sporting events. At Indoor Mega Events, verification of fully vaccinated status or a pre-entry negative COVID-19 test result is required for all attendees. Outdoor Mega Events include events such as music or food festivals, car shows, marathons, parades, sporting events, and concerts. At Outdoor Mega Events, verification of fully vaccinated status or a pre-entry negative COVID-19 is strongly recommended for all attendees. Attendees who do not verify vaccination status should be asked to wear face coverings. Outdoor Mega Events venues are required to make masks available for all attendees.

Pre-entry testing for Mega Events must be conducted within 72 hours prior to the event start time. Both PCR and antigen testing are acceptable. Negative COVID-19 test results can be provided in the form of a printed document from the test provider or laboratory, or an email or text message displayed on a phone from the test provider or laboratory. Vaccination status can be verified by presenting either a vaccination card, a photo of a vaccination card, a photo of the vaccination card stored on a phone or electronic device, or documentation of vaccination from a healthcare provider. Business and venue operators may also utilize self-attestation at the point of registration, during ticket purchase, or on the day of the event prior to entry into the venue. Indoor and Outdoor Mega Event operators must prominently place information on all communications to ensure guests are aware of testing and vaccination requirements. Attendees of both Indoor Mega and Outdoor Mega Events must follow the CDPH Guidance for Face Coverings.

The requirements and recommendations for vaccination verification and negative test results will be in place from June 15, 2021 through October 1, 2021. The CDPH will assess conditions by September 1, 2021 to determine whether updated requirements or recommendations are needed beyond October 1, 2021.

For any questions regarding the CDPH’s reopening details and their implications, please contact Douglas L. White at doug@whitebrennerllp.com, Nubia Goldstein at nubia@whitebrennerllp.com, or the White Brenner LLP office at (916) 468-0950.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued new guidance on Thursday, May 13th for fully vaccinated individuals. Under the CDC’s new guidance, people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 may resume activities without wearing a mask or physically distancing in most indoor or outdoor settings.

Vaccinated individuals must cover their faces and physically distance when going to doctors, hospitals or long-term facilities such as nursing homes; when traveling by bus, plane, train or other modes of public transportation, or while in transportation hubs such as airports and bus stations; and in congregate settings such as homeless shelters, as well as prisons or jails.

Individuals are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine or the second dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine series. The CDC guidance indicates that unvaccinated people refers to individuals of all ages, including children.

According to the CDC’s guidance, vaccinated individuals must continue to abide by existing state, local, or tribal laws and regulations, and follow local rules for businesses and workplaces. Earlier this month, the California Department of Public Health updated California’s guidelines for face coverings for some outdoor settings. Currently, fully vaccinated individuals in California are not required to wear face coverings outdoors except when attending crowded outdoor events, such as live performances, parades, fairs, festivals, sports events, or other similar settings.

On Monday, May 17^th, Dr. Mark Ghaly, secretary of California’s Health and Human Services, announced that California will adopt the CDC’s guidance on June 15th. June 15th is the same day Governor Gavin Newsom expects to end most the California’s COVID-19 restrictions if the state’s COVID-19 case numbers continue to improve. Until June 15th, people in California are still required to wear face coverings in indoor settings and outdoor settings where physical distancing is not possible.

Workplaces are not included in the guidance to be adopted on June 15th. Employers must continue to adhere to workplace masking requirements set by California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board. The Board is currently considering removing its masking mandates by August 1st.

For any questions regarding this guidance and its implications, please contact Douglas L. White at doug@whitebrennerllp.com, Nubia Goldstein at nubia@whitebrennerllp.com, or the White Brenner LLP office at (916) 468-0950.

Since the lockdowns from the Covid-19 pandemic began in March of 2020, all indoor and outdoor youth sports were paused to ensure the health and safety of participants. It was not until last month that all outdoor youth sports could continue for counties with new cases at fourteen or fewer per one hundred thousand people. Outdoor sports are allowed to be conducted only with adherence to strict guidelines such as mandatory mask wearing for those not in the game, no sharing equipment, no indoor activities, etc. Individuals over the age of 13 who participate in “close contact” sports, such as football and rugby, are also required to undergo weekly testing.

Indoor youth sports in California have been a higher point of contention between state officials and youth sports organizations. The state’s hesitancy stemmed from increased chance of spread indoors while in close proximity, and rising cases throughout the fall and winter. This prompted two high school students to bring a lawsuit in an attempt to resume youth sports. On March 4, 2021, the students and the State of California reached a settlement that will allow indoor youth sports to continue throughout the state. However, youth sports programs will need to meet a variety of requirements before they can resume.

As with outdoor sports, counties may restart indoor youth sports when Covid-19 cases fall to fourteen or fewer new cases per one hundred thousand people. The settlement also adopts the same testing requirements as many outdoor sports, specifically weekly testing and results within forty-eight hours of competition. Tests will continue to be administered until county Covid-19 cases reach a particular number that varies depending on the sport. For example, testing basketball players will be required until the county reaches less than one new case per one hundred thousand people.

With a steep decline in Covid-19 cases throughout the state, most counties already meet these requirements. However, county health departments may choose to impose stricter standards for the resumption of programs. Updated guidelines on how to conduct indoor youth sports were released by the California Department of Public Health, attached here:

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/outdoor-indoor-recreational-sports.aspx

For any questions regarding the settlement and its implications, please contact Douglas L. White at doug@whitebrennerllp.com, Nubia Goldstein at nubia@whitebrennerllp.com, or the White Brenner LLP office at (916) 468-0950.