Employers in California have a legal and ethical responsibility to protect workers from unsafe and hazardous workplaces, which includes responding to wildfire dangers when necessary. Here’s what employers need to know:

Stay Informed

Employers need to stay informed during wildfire outbreaks by assessing hazards from wildfire smoke, proximity to fire outbreaks, and other unsafe conditions. A comprehensive review of these conditions should be considered before employees are permitted to return to a work site.

Employers are also encouraged to regularly monitor and stay informed of local conditions, including all relevant evacuation zones.

Retain all documentation of workplace safety measures.

Understand Cal/OSHA Wildfire Smoke Rule: 5141.1

Employers are required to monitor air quality and are otherwise subject to the Wildfire Smoke Rule when it can be reasonably anticipated that employees may be exposed to wildfire smoke and the current Air Quality Index (AQI) for PM 2.5 is 151 or greater.  The obligation to monitor the Air Quality Index (AQI) extend to all California employers unless the worksite is located in a) an enclosed building with filtered air utilizing a mechanical ventilation system, and windows and doors routinely remain closed OR b) an enclosed vehicle with filtered cabin air.

Follow Cal/OSHA Regulations

Air Quality and Respiratory Protection: If the Air Quality Index (AQI) for PM 2.5 exceeds 151, employers must provide N95 masks for voluntary use. If AQI is above 500, employers must provide and require N95 masks.

Emergency Preparedness Plan: Develop and communicate an emergency action plan, including evacuation routes and emergency contacts.

Workplace Safety Measures: Reduce outdoor work during poor air quality, provide indoor shelter when possible, and ensure proper ventilation systems.

Keep Employees Informed

Monitor AQI from reliable sources (e.g. U.S. EPA’s AirNow).

Use internal communication channels (emails, texts, apps) to notify employees about wildfire risks and air quality updates.

Allow Flexible Work Arrangements

Permit remote work if possible.

Adjust work schedules to minimize outdoor exposure.

Support Employees’ Well- Being:

Provide masks, eye protection, and proper hydration.

Offer additional breaks for workers exposed to smoke or heat.

Employees may use accrued sick leave under California law for absences related to the wildfire disaster if it falls under use that is permissible such as caring for a family member or health issues. Employees also have an option to take paid leave under vacation or paid time off policy if the policy provides for such leave.

In addition, other local laws may provide enhanced paid leave and other benefits.  Employers need to remain aware of the impact that natural disasters may cause on an employee’s need for accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) as well as any leave obligations that may be presented by certain classifications of disaster relief workers.

Prepare for Business Continuity:

Have backup communication plans in case of power outages.

Protect critical business assets from fire risk.

Review insurance policies for wildfire related coverage.

PrestigePEO is here to help.

PrestigePEO is focused on supporting your business. If you have any questions regarding the Employer’s responsibility during wildfires in California requirements, please contact us.

As a reminder, California employers are entering the third year of the expanded California Pay Data Reporting requirements.  This annual Pay Data Report is due by May 14, 2025.  Employers are encouraged to start planning now for this deadline, to ensure compliance with the increasingly complex requirements.

This reporting requirement applies to all private employers of who “regularly employ” 100 or more employees and at least one (1) employee in California and/or employers who hired 100 or more workers through labor contractors and at least one (1) in California.  Employers will be required to submit Employers Reports and Labor Contractor Reports if they fall under both criteria and for employers with multiple establishments, a report must be submitted for each establishment. For employers with multiple legal entities and multiple establishments, the report must be submitted by legal entity for each establishment.

The California Pay Data reporting requirements are very fact specific.  Employers are encouraged to work with their various stakeholders soon to ensure that the necessary time is considered when planning for this May 14, 2025, deadline.

PrestigePEO is here to help.

PrestigePEO is focused on supporting your business. If you have any questions regarding the California Pay Data Reporting requirements, please contact us.

The speed at which the political environment seems to be shifting can leave employers wondering what to anticipate as we move into 2025.  We have already witnessed a number of changes that while predicted, were not expected this early in the new administration.

Several of these changes included those to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency that enforces the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB is focused on employee and union rights and does so by investigating charges, facilitating settlements, deciding cases, conducting union elections, and enforcing court orders. The NLRB also engages in rulemaking efforts to further its commitment to safeguarding employee and union rights. In order to accomplish its purpose, the NLRB is comprised of many departments and divisions but is led from the top by The Board, which may be comprised of a total five Members, and The General Counsel.

Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump dismissed the National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo and surprisingly unseated Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, as well.  This removal of Wilcox has reduced the Board’s membership to a two-person board.  The NLRB requires a three-person quorum in order to legislate and issue decisions, thus resulting in the suspension of the Board’s ability to adjudicate cases, set new legal precedent, or engage in general rulemaking. The President’s removal tactics have ignited legal challenges and will likely result in increased legal scrutiny pertaining to executive control over independent agencies.

Employers are left to wonder about the future of the NLRB’s overall reach with labor law enforcement.  Should the Board be restocked with a Republican majority, employers can likely expect a reversal of many Biden-era priorities such as joint employer status, worker classification, and protected concerted activity.  With this shift in enforcement priorities, legal experts agree that the result could potentially be less aggressive prosecution of alleged unfair labor practices resulting from employee activities such as workplace protests and mandatory meeting.  There may also be a shift in the worker classification definition favoring independent contractor designations, otherwise returning to the more lenient rule issued during Trump’s first administration.  A shift to employer friendly non-solicitation and noncompete clauses is also expected.

In another first of its kind, President Trump has fired two seated members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), prior to the expiration of their appointed tenure, leaving only two EEOC Commissioners.  Similar to the NLRB, the EEOC requires a three-member quorum to create new regulation or issue legal directives.  While a number of changes are expected to this agency, it is likely that Trump will fill at least one vacancy in the short term, with a Republican majority expected over time.

EEOC priorities are also expected to shift away from many programs including Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, with speculation that even private DEI programs may be regulated, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act may be rescinded, there is expected expansion of employee’s religious rights that may impact LGBTQ+ workers’ ability to bring harassment or hostile workplace claims, as well as restriction of gender identity efforts, a conversative move towards employee’s bathroom access, and finally, it is expected that the EEOC will pursue “reverse discrimination” claims in the workplace.

Wage and Hour changes are also expected in the New Year.  It is anticipated that legal challenges to the overturned 2024 efforts to adjust the overtime requirements and increase the exempt salary threshold will be abandoned by the Department of Labor.  Modest increases to the salary threshold may take shape, however, as well as a push for slight increases to the federal minimum wage, as a result of campaign promises. As the federal government’s anticipated ease of enforcement efforts materialize, there is also expected increase enforcement activity at the local and state levels.  Employers are encouraged to stay updated as to the workplace rules and regulations in their worksite locations to better understand the impact these obligations will have in the near future.

PrestigePEO is monitoring these changes and is here to help.  Please reach out to your HRBP with any specific questions.

In a much-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has published its opinion on the E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, No. 23-217 (Jan. 15, 2025) case.  At issue in this matter was the Court’s consideration of which standard of proof applies to an employer’s burden when determining whether an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  In an earlier United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision, it was ruled that the higher standard of proof, or that of “clear and convincing evidence” must be established by an employer in order to contend that an overtime exemption under the FLSA applies to an employee’s status.  The initial ruling specifically involved eligibility under the FLSA’s outside sales exemption, however the recent SCOTUS ruling applies to all FLSA exemptions.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the Fourth Circuit’s ruling that held the higher standard, or that of “clear and convincing evidence” was required in order for an employer to establish that the overtime exemption was applicable as an affirmative defense in cases involving claims of FLSA violations.  Rather, now an employer need only establish that an overtime exemption may be applicable through the lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which lessens the burden on the employer when establishing FLSA exemptions.

PrestigePEO will continue to monitor SCOTUS decisions and is here to help.  Please reach out to your HRBP with any specific questions.

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape the workplace, state and local governments are stepping in to regulate its use in employment decisions. In the absence of comprehensive federal legislation, employers must navigate a complex and rapidly changing regulatory landscape with a patchwork of state and local rules. Many of these new laws focus on mitigating the risk of algorithmic discrimination which occurs when AI-driven decision-making results in biased outcomes against protected groups.

State and Local AI Regulations Impacting Employers

• The Colorado AI Act, taking effect in 2026, requires businesses using AI in employment decisions to exercise reasonable care in preventing bias and mandates transparency for AI interactions.
• Illinois’ recent amendment to its Human Rights Act prohibits AI-driven discrimination and requires employers to notify employees when AI is used in hiring.
• New York City Local Law 144, already in effect, mandates annual bias audits for automated hiring tools and requires disclosure to job applicants.

Pending AI Employment Regulations

While some key AI employment laws are already in place, others are on the horizon.

• California is advancing multiple AI-related measures. The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) is finalizing rules that would require businesses to notify individuals before using AI in employment decisions and allow them to opt out. Further, the California Civil Rights Council is proposing restrictions on AI screening tools, mandating anti-bias testing, and requiring employers to retain AI-generated hiring data for four years.
• In Texas, pending legislation would establish compliance requirements for high-risk AI systems, with steep penalties for non-compliance.

How Employers Can Prepare

Employers should conduct regular bias audits, ensure transparency in AI-driven decisions, and maintain human oversight in hiring and employment processes. Staying informed about evolving AI regulations minimizes legal risks and ensures compliance. As AI regulations develop, businesses must proactively adapt to emerging requirements, prioritizing fairness and accountability in their AI-driven employment practices.

PrestigePEO is here to support your business and will keep you informed as developments arise.

Back in November, we released an Insights article informing about upcoming changes to Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave in Michigan due to a 2024 Michigan Supreme Court decision. That decision essentially reinstated the 2018 version of the paid sick leave and minimum wage laws that were voter-initiated. Based on the Michigan Supreme Court’s actions, the Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA) and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (IWOWA) are to take effect on February 21, 2025.

Now, Michigan legislators are working to pass legislation to amend the laws set to take effect by introducing HB 4001 and SB 8 (aiming to make changes to IWOWA) and HB 4002 and SB 15 (aiming to make changes to ESTA). With the competing bill proposals set forth by the Michigan legislature, it most likely that any changes to either IWOWA or ESTA will not be finalized until after February 21, 2025.

What does this mean for Employers?

The goal of the proposed legislation appears to be intended to ease the burden placed on employers under ESTA and IWOWA. At this point, determining those changes would be speculation, but there is some overlap between the proposed legislation:

• Earned Sick Time (ESTA) – It is anticipated that once the pending legislation passes:
  • Employees classified as exempt under Fair Labor Standards Act would still be considered covered as covered employees under ESTA.
  • The smallest increment of time used under ESTA would be one (1) hour.
  • There will be a cap on carryover ESTA hours but how many hours is still not determined based on the differences in the proposed legislation.
  • Employers will be allowed to frontload their employee’s ESTA’s required hours of sick leave.
  • Employees will no longer be able to bring a private right of action for ESTA violations but would be able to bring an administrative charge for ESTA violations under Michigan’s Labor and Economic Opportnunity (LEO) agency.

• Minimum Wage (IWOWA)
  • The Tip Credit will most likely remain for the foreseeable future, which will allow Michigan employers to pay tipped workers below minimum wage. The proposed changes to IWOWA impact the percentage amount under minimum wage employers would be required to pay tipped workers. Under HB 4001, the reduced wage receive by tipped workers would remain at 38% of the state minimum wage and tip credit would then be eliminated in 2030. The competing bill, SB 8, proposes that the reduced wage received by tipped workers would gradually increase to 60% of the state minimum wage by 2035.

These changes are not set in stone quite yet, and until then, employers should operate under the current ESTA and IWOWA laws set to go into effect on February 21, 2025.

PrestigePEO will continue to monitor these legislative efforts in Michigan and will provide updates as they become available.

The Wyoming Legislature is reviewing eleven employment-related bills that could bring significant changes for employers across various industries. Proposed changes address restrictions to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, preferred pronouns, non-compete agreements, voting leave, and immigration-related employment practices. These bills could introduce new compliance requirements and workplace policies for Wyoming employers if passed.

Gender Policy

House Bill 32, also known as “What is a Woman Act,” seeks to define terms such as sex, male, and female according to biological sex at birth, not gender identity. It clarifies that sex-based distinctions in areas like sports, shelters, and restrooms are legally permissible under Wyoming law. However, a provision in this bill has raised questions regarding the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Public Sector DEI Prohibitions

Two additional bills, House Bill 147 and Senate File 103, target DEI programs in public employment. House Bill 147 would prohibit state and local government employers from implementing DEI programs or requiring employees to participate in DEI training. It also defines and bans institutional discrimination, including race-based preferential treatment. This bill has gained momentum, passing the House Education Committee unanimously. Senate File 103 would take the restrictions further by prohibiting public funds for DEI-related initiatives, barring public employers from giving hiring preference based on race, color, or ethnicity, and restricting DEI-related training unless required by law.  A related proposal, Senate File 77, would prevent government employers from requiring employees to use colleagues’ preferred pronouns as a condition of employment.

Non-Compete Agreements

In another key area, Senate File 107 proposes to broadly void non-compete agreements, except those for executive and management personnel or to protect trade secrets. It would also void physician non-competes, a potentially significant shift for healthcare employers. While aimed at promoting employee mobility and economic competition, the bill raises concerns for employers relying on non-compete agreements to protect business interests and investments in employee training.

Voting Time Expansion

House Bill 178 seeks to expand voting time off for employees, increasing the required paid leave from one hour to two and allowing its use on election day or during early voting. This proposal could enhance voter access while imposing a minor adjustment for employers managing staffing needs.

Concealed Firearms

House Bill 172 would impact public employers by lifting most restrictions on employees carrying concealed firearms. The bill repeals designated gun-free zones and allows concealed carry in government meetings and public buildings, except for some places such as schools, hospitals, and facilities handling explosives. School districts would be permitted to establish rules regarding employee concealed carry.

Protections for Healthcare Workers

House Bills 115 and 222 aim to protect healthcare workers who decline to participate in procedures due to ethical, moral, or religious beliefs. The bills also provide whistleblower protections for employees reporting suspected legal or ethical violations.

Immigration-Related Employment Bills

House Bill 163 would create state-level penalties for hiring unauthorized workers, and Senate File 124 proposes new employer responsibilities regarding immigration compliance. The legislation introduces potential criminal charges for certain immigration-related offenses. While federal law already imposes employment verification requirements, these bills would add additional state-level enforcement. Neither proposal has advanced in the Legislature.

Employer Considerations

Changes to non-compete agreements may affect industries such as healthcare and finance, while new immigration rules could create additional employer responsibilities. Wyoming employers should stay informed on legislative developments to prepare for potential adjustments to workplace practices.

PrestigePEO is here to support your business and will keep you informed as developments arise. If you have any specific questions, please contact your HRBP.