Facebook-f Linkedin-in
(800) 679-2760

News & Events

Did You Know

HR MATTERS • April 2026

Did you know California passed a law requiring hospitals to implement weapons screening?

For years, California has been at the forefront of workplace violence prevention, particularly within the healthcare sector. Following in the footsteps of previous Cal/OSHA standards, Assembly Bill (AB) 2975 is the latest step in tightening security protocols.

Hospitals must begin preparing now to meet new requirements regarding weapons detection and screening policies.

By March 1, 2027, Cal/OSHA will adopt standards requiring hospitals to deploy automatic security technology designed to identify instruments capable of inflicting serious injury or death.

Under the new law, screening must be implemented at three specific high-traffic areas:

  • The main public entrance
  • The emergency department entrance
  • The labor and delivery entrance (if separate from the main entrance)

Note: These requirements do not apply to dedicated ambulance entrances.

The Standards Board will define a list of the security mechanisms, devices, or technologies that meet these requirements.

While many facilities currently utilize handheld metal detector wands, AB 2975 mandates a shift toward automatic detection devices.

  • Integrated Use: Handheld wands may still be used, but only in conjunction with automatic technology.
  • Exemptions: Small or rural hospitals, facilities with extreme space limitations, and certain extended-care providers may be permitted to continue using only handheld detectors.

Compliance isn’t just about the hardware; it involves significant operational and personnel shifts.

  • Dedicated Personnel: Hospitals must assign specific staff to monitor and operate these devices. Crucially, these roles cannot be filled by healthcare providers.
  • Mandatory Training: Assigned personnel must complete at least 8 hours of training covering device operation, facility weapon policies, de-escalation techniques, and implicit bias.
  • Public Notice: Hospitals are required to post clear, conspicuous signage near public entrances informing visitors of the weapons detection screening process.

These changes represent a significant investment in both technology and human capital. We recommend reviewing your current security infrastructure and staffing models early to ensure a seamless transition well before the 2027 deadline.

Did you know California updated their personnel file access law?

There has been some confusion regarding the specific requirements of SB 513, which went into effect on January 1, 2026. This legislation amends California Labor Code Section 1198.5, the statute governing an employee’s right to inspect or receive copies of their personnel records.

What changed?

While employers have long been required to provide access to personnel files, SB 513 explicitly adds education and training records to the list of items that must be made available for review or copying upon request.

The “If You Have It” Rule

It is important to clarify what SB 513 does not do:

  • It does not require employers to begin retaining new types of records they don’t already keep.
  • It does not require the creation of training records that do not currently exist.

Essentially: If you keep it, you must provide it. If your practice maintains training logs or educational certificates as part of an employee’s file, those are now subject to the same disclosure rules as performance reviews or payroll records.

Mandatory Records and Maintenance

Many employers are already legally required to maintain records for specific training (such as Sexual Harassment Prevention and Workplace Violence Prevention). This new law sets a strict standard for how these mandatory records—and any other voluntary training records you choose to keep—must be maintained.

For a record to be compliant under SB 513, it must now include the following specific details:

  • Employee Name: The full name of the participant.
  • Provider Information: The name of the person or organization that conducted the training.
  • Date and Duration: When the training occurred and how long it lasted.
  • Core Competencies: A description of the core competencies covered (e.g., specific skill or software proficiency).
  • Certification: Any resulting qualification or certification earned.
Did you know Washington State implemented a total ban on noncompetes?

On March 23, 2026, Governor Bob Ferguson signed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155 (ESHB 1155), effectively ending the era of the noncompetition covenant in Washington State.

Important Deadlines and Compliance Actions

Deadline

Requirement

June 30, 2027

The law officially takes effect. All existing noncompetes become void.

October 1, 2027

Notice Deadline: Employers must make “reasonable efforts” to provide written notice to all current and former workers (who have active noncompetes) stating the provision is void.

Here is a breakdown of what this means for your business and how to stay compliant.

Starting June 30, 2027, employers can no longer enforce or even suggest that an employee or contractor is restricted from engaging in their profession after leaving. The law doesn’t just ban traditional “radius” clauses; it broadens the definition of a “noncompetition covenant” to include:

  • Any agreement that directly or indirectly prohibits transacting business with customers/patients.
  • Provisions that require an individual to repay or forfeit compensation (like bonuses or benefits) as a consequence of competing.
What Is Still Allowed?

While the ban is extensive, certain protective measures remain legal if they meet specific statutory limits:

  • Nonsolicitation Agreements: For up to 18 months post-termination, you may still prohibit former employees from soliciting customers, prospective customers, patients, and clients, to shift business away from the employer, if the employee has a direct relationship with the customer, patient, or prospect through the employee’s work with the employer.
    • Caveat: Any restriction on “accepting” business (even without solicitation) is treated as a prohibited noncompete, even if labeled a “nonsolicitation clause.”
  • Confidentiality & Trade Secrets: Standard nondisclosure agreements designed to protect proprietary information or trade secrets remain valid.
  • Sale of a Practice: Noncompetes are still permitted during the sale of a business, provided the person signing the covenant holds 1% or more ownership interest.
  • Education Expense Repayment: Educational “stay-or-pay” agreements are allowed only if the repayment obligation ends within 18 months of hire, is prorated over that period, and is waived if the employee separates for a reason that qualifies as good cause under unemployment insurance standards.

Individuals now have a private right of action. This means if you attempt to enforce a voided noncompete, or even represent to an employee that they are bound by one, you could be liable for damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Legal challenges regarding the retroactive nature of this law are expected. Employers whose existing agreements are affected by this law should consult knowledgeable legal counsel regarding their options.

Did you know that an Ohio jury awarded $22.5 million in a case related to workplace pregnancy accommodations?

In a staggering verdict that serves as a wake-up call for employers nationwide, an Ohio jury awarded $22.5 million on March 18, 2026, in a wrongful death lawsuit. The case centered on a company’s denial of a work-from-home request for a pregnant employee—an action the jury found to be a “substantial factor” in the death of the employee’s infant.

  • The Case: Larkin v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC. A logistics firm denied a remote-work accommodation for an employee with a high-risk pregnancy.
  • The Verdict: The jury determined the denial contributed to premature labor and the subsequent death of the baby.
  • The Lesson: Accommodation denials do more than trigger HR disputes; they can create massive liability if they aggravate a worker’s medical condition or lead to catastrophic physical outcomes.

This case underscores the critical intersection of two primary federal mandates:

  1. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): The ADA covers pregnancy-related complications that qualify as physical or mental disabilities. Employers must engage in the “interactive process” to find reasonable accommodations—such as remote work, light duty, or modified schedules. A claim can be triggered not just by a flat denial, but by unreasonable delays that cause a breakdown in that process.
  2. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA): The PWFA expanded protections significantly. It requires accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions even if they do not rise to the level of a disability. Under the PWFA, employers may even be required to temporarily waive essential job functions—a higher standard than the ADA.

The “Undue Hardship” Bar: To legally deny an accommodation, an employer must prove it would cause “undue hardship”—meaning significant difficulty or expense. In the era of remote work, proving that a desk-based role cannot be done from home is an increasingly uphill battle.

While the company may appeal, the damage to the brand and the bottom line is already done. This eight-figure award is an outlier in size, but it proves that the stakes of HR decisions are very high.

Browse

Let us answer your HR compliance questions.

Contact Us
Join Our Newsletter
Subscribe