With decades of experience helping organizations navigate the complex intersection of human resources and technology, HRTech expert Ling-Yi Tsai has a unique vantage point on the ever-shifting landscape of compliance. As California prepares for another wave of significant employment legislation set to take effect in 2026, the challenges for HR departments are mounting. We sat down with Ling-Yi to discuss the practical, on-the-ground implications of these new laws. Our conversation moves beyond the legal text to explore proactive strategies for everything from revamping notice procedures and managing newly defined personnel files to navigating the sensitive nuances of pay equity reporting and training repayment agreements.
The ‘Know Your Rights’ notice has a deadline of February 1, 2026. Beyond simply distributing the state’s template, how should employers be thinking about integrating this into their annual compliance rhythm to make it a meaningful part of their workplace culture?
It’s a huge relief that the state’s labor commissioner is providing a template, so HR teams don’t have to start from scratch. However, the biggest mistake would be to just print it, post it, and forget it. The law specifically allows the notice to be modified for an employer’s workplace, and that’s the key. This is an opportunity to tailor the information, perhaps by adding a cover letter from leadership reinforcing the company’s commitment to these rights. For annual compliance, this needs to be built directly into the HR calendar, like a recurring appointment you can’t miss. Set a reminder for every January to pull the latest version from the commissioner, make your workplace-specific modifications, and plan the distribution alongside other annual tasks. It’s about creating a predictable, reliable process so this never falls through the cracks.
With SB 513 now expanding the definition of personnel files to include training records, what does a robust and responsive documentation process look like for an HR department trying to stay ahead of the 30-day request window?
This change means the days of scattered sign-in sheets or siloed departmental training logs are over. HR departments must now think of training records as a core component of the official employee file. The best practice is to create a centralized, ideally digital, repository. Every mandatory harassment training, every software skills workshop, every core competency session—it all needs to be logged, dated, and linked to the employee’s profile. When an employee requests their file, the clock starts ticking on that 30-day window. The process should be automatic: first, acknowledge the request in writing immediately. Then, your system should allow you to pull a complete file, including these newly defined training records, within a day or two. This gives you ample time to review the file for any legally required redactions before providing it to the employee, turning a potential fire drill into a smooth, professional transaction.
The update to the Cal-WARN notice now requires information on workforce development boards. How can employers transform this from a simple text-based requirement into a tangible support system for workers facing a layoff?
This is where HR can show its true value and compassion. Instead of just looking up the local workforce development board’s phone number when drafting a layoff notice, the proactive approach is to build that relationship now. Pick up the phone and schedule a meeting with a representative from your local board. Learn about their rapid response activities, get a direct contact person, and understand exactly what resources they can offer your employees. Imagine the difference for an affected worker: one notice has a generic website link, while another says, ‘We have been in direct contact with our local workforce development board, and they are prepared to offer you immediate assistance with…’ This transforms a legal obligation into a genuine, supportive bridge to the employee’s next chapter.
Starting in 2028, employees can take paid leave for a “designated person.” How can employers develop an attestation form that meets the “penalty of perjury” requirement without feeling invasive to an employee who may be in a sensitive personal situation?
The goal here is to balance compliance with empathy. The law is designed to be inclusive of modern family structures, and the employer’s process should reflect that respect. The attestation form should be remarkably simple. It only needs a few key elements: the employee’s name, the designated person’s name, and a clear statement for the employee to sign. This statement should say something like, ‘I hereby attest, under penalty of perjury, that the person named above is related to me by blood or has an association with me that is the equivalent of a family relationship.’ That’s it. There should be no fields asking for details, no questions about the nature of the relationship. The power of the document lies in the employee’s sworn statement, and HR’s role is to accept that attestation without further inquiry, preserving the employee’s privacy and dignity.
California’s pay equity laws now demand a “good faith estimate” for pay scales in job postings. Could you walk us through the data and metrics an organization should use to construct a defensible estimate?
“Good faith” is a legal term, but in practice, it means “show your work.” You can’t just pick a number that feels right; it has to be based on a concrete, documented analysis. A defensible estimate is built on a three-legged stool of data. First, you look inward at your internal equity, analyzing what you currently pay employees in similar roles with comparable skills and experience. Second, you look outward, using at least two reliable, current market data sources to benchmark the role in your specific geographic location and industry. Third, you consider the specific role’s budget and the level you’re hiring for. For example, to set a range for a Senior Marketing Manager, you would pull the salaries of all current Senior Managers, check what compensation surveys say for that role in your city, and then create a range that reflects those data points and the budget you have approved for that hire. Documenting every step of this analysis is your best defense.
Pay data reporting is expanding from 10 to 23 job categories by May 2027. What are the most significant logistical hurdles employers face with this re-categorization, and what should they be doing today to prepare?
The biggest challenge is the sheer manual effort and potential for error if companies wait. Many HR information systems and payroll platforms are built around those original 10 EEO-1 categories. Expanding to 23 isn’t a simple software patch; it requires a fundamental re-mapping of your entire workforce. The single most important step to take right now is to conduct a full audit of every job title in your organization. Create a master spreadsheet and begin the painstaking work of mapping each position to one of the 23 new categories. This is a cross-functional project that needs input from HR, department heads, and IT. If you start this data-cleansing process now, you can be ready for the May 2027 deadline with accurate, reliable data. Waiting until 2026 will create an absolute data management crisis.
AB 692 sharply curtails training repayment agreements, permitting them only in cases of voluntary resignation or termination for “misconduct.” Could you elaborate on the high burden of proof required for “misconduct” and advise on structuring compliant agreements?
The term “misconduct” sets an incredibly high bar. We are not talking about an employee who is simply not meeting performance expectations or is a poor culture fit. That’s a “run of the mill termination” that would not qualify. Misconduct implies a serious, willful violation of company policy, such as theft, fraud, harassment, or insubordination. To meet this burden, an employer needs a robust, well-documented investigation with clear evidence. When structuring a tuition reimbursement program, the agreement must be a standalone contract, completely separate from the employment offer. It should explicitly state that repayment is only triggered if the employee voluntarily resigns or is terminated for documented misconduct within a specified period. It’s crucial that HR understands they cannot use this as a tool to recoup costs from a standard termination; the legal risk is just too high.
The overtime exemption salary threshold is climbing to $70,304. Beyond the immediate payroll costs, what are the secondary effects on pay equity and morale that HR managers should be prepared to address?
The budget hit is the first thing leadership sees, but the more corrosive impact is on morale and internal pay equity. Imagine you have two team leads doing similar work. One makes $71,000 and remains exempt, enjoying flexibility. The other makes $69,500, and overnight they are reclassified as non-exempt, now required to clock in and out and meticulously track every minute of their day. This can feel like a demotion and creates a new, very visible status divide within a team, which can be devastating to morale. HR managers need to run a compression analysis immediately to identify these at-risk employees. The best way to mitigate this is to consider salary adjustments to push those just below the threshold over the top, preserving both their exempt status and a sense of fairness across the team.
Given that SB 303 clarifies that participating in bias mitigation training isn’t, by itself, evidence of discrimination, how should this empower companies to design more effective and honest DEI programs?
This law is a green light for companies to move beyond superficial, check-the-box DEI training. It creates a legally safer space for the kind of deep, reflective work that actually leads to change. In the past, there was a lingering fear that if a manager acknowledged a potential personal bias during a training session, it could be used against the company in a lawsuit. Now, the law says that an admission made in good faith during training is not, by itself, proof of discrimination. For example, a hiring manager could say, “I recognize I might be unintentionally favoring candidates who remind me of myself,” without creating an immediate legal firestorm. This allows facilitators to foster more candid, vulnerable conversations, which is where real learning and growth happen.
What is your forecast for California employment law beyond 2026?
Looking ahead, I see three major trends solidifying. First, the push for transparency and equity will go even deeper. I anticipate we’ll move beyond just posting pay scales to requirements around reporting promotion velocity and opportunity gaps across demographics. Second, the focus on employee mobility will intensify, with California likely to pioneer even more stringent restrictions on any contract or policy that limits a worker’s ability to seek new opportunities. Finally, and most critically, expect a significant wave of legislation aimed at regulating the use of artificial intelligence in HR, from AI-driven resume screeners to performance management algorithms, to ensure these powerful tools are used fairly and without perpetuating systemic bias. The core message for employers remains constant: in California, compliance is a continuous journey, not a destination.