Key 2026 California Laws that Affect Workplace Investigations
Another year, another round of California employment law changes—and this time, workplace investigations are in the spotlight. The result? Four new laws and a state appellate court case broadened employee protections and introduced new compliance obligations that will influence the scope and execution of investigations. This quick read includes a summary of the most pertinent changes that will impact workplace investigations in 2026 and beyond.
SB 513 — Expanded Employee Access to Personnel Records Includes Training Documentation
Effective: January 1, 2026
What does the Bill say? Senate Bill 513 amends California law to explicitly include training and education records within the definition of “personnel records.” This change elevates training documentation from an administrative practice to a statutory obligation and makes such records subject to inspection and production requirements. The statute specifies required content to be maintained as part of an employee’s personnel record, including the training provider, dates and duration of training, core competencies, and any certifications or qualifications earned.
What does this mean for investigators? For workplace investigations, if the issues involve performance or training, the scope of inquiry may include whether employees and supervisors were trained, what the training covered, and whether it was timely and sufficient. Employees may also request access to their training and certification records maintained by their employer, which increases transparency, but also raises the stakes for how documentation is maintained and stored by the employer.
SB 642 — Expanded Equal Pay Act and Pay Transparency Requirements
Effective: January 1, 2026
What does the Bill say? Senate Bill 642 strengthens California’s Equal Pay Act and pay transparency framework by expanding how compensation comparisons are evaluated, broadening what constitutes wages and total compensation, tightening pay scale disclosure obligations, and expanding remedies and lookback periods for violations. SB 642 ensures that compensation practices will be subject to deeper scrutiny in investigations and that employers must be prepared for pay-related issues to expand the scope of otherwise traditional misconduct inquiries. Complaints related to pay equity, wage discrimination, or compensation disputes will have stronger statutory backing and longer look-back periods. Investigations into wage disparities may become more frequent, and employers should expect more scrutiny on pay practices.
What does this mean for investigators? In investigations, pay equity issues increasingly appear as underlying drivers of broader complaints, even when employees frame concerns as unfair treatment, favoritism, or retaliation. Investigators should consider examining compensation histories, job classifications, performance evaluations, and pay decision rationales. For public employers, this analysis may require accounting for classification systems, civil service rules, and collective bargaining agreements. For private employers, it may require close review of internal leveling frameworks and business justifications.
SB 294 — “Workplace Know Your Rights Act” (Notice Requirements)
Effective: February 1, 2026
What does the Bill say? Senate Bill 294 expands employer obligations to provide written notice of employee rights and establishes additional procedural protections related to immigration enforcement activity. The law requires employers to provide a standalone written notice of specified employee rights at hire and annually, including rights related to immigration enforcement, concerted activity, and protections against retaliation. It also requires employers to establish a process for employees to designate emergency contacts and to follow specific procedures when law enforcement or immigration enforcement is present at the workplace.
What does this mean for investigators? Investigators may need to examine whether required notices were provided, how management communicated with employees during or after enforcement-related events, and whether employee rights were respected. Allegations of intimidation, improper questioning, differential treatment, or mishandling of information frequently arise in this context. For public agencies, this analysis may also implicate constitutional and labor law considerations. For private employers, it often focuses on policy compliance and managerial discretion.
SB 446 — Data Breach & Privacy-Related Notification Law
Effective: January 1, 2026
What does the Bill say? SB 446 amends California’s data breach notification law (Civil Code § 1798.82) to impose firm deadlines and clearer procedures for notifying individuals and the state when personal data is breached. It replaces the old “most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay” standard with specific timelines to increase transparency and prompt action.
What does this mean for investigators? Many workplace investigations involve collecting, storing, and reviewing sensitive personnel data. With SB 446, employers must ensure strong data security practices, documentation of chain of custody, secure storage of investigation materials, and clear breach-response plans. A data leak during or after an investigation could trigger statutory notice obligations and legal liability.
AB 692 — “Stay-or-Pay” Provisions
Effective: January 1, 2026
What does the Bill say? Assembly Bill 692 curbs “stay-or-pay” employment practices by invalidating contracts that financially punish workers for leaving a job. With some exceptions, the AB 692 generally makes it unlawful to require repayment of employment-related debts, resume debt collection, or impose fees or penalties triggered by termination of employment.
What does this mean for investigators? This may affect investigations where training reimbursement or contract enforcement is a component. Employers will need to be careful about using such agreements when hiring or taking disciplinary measures that involve reimbursement or clawbacks.
Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc. — Retaliation Based on Mistaken Belief of Protected Activity
What does the case say? In Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc., Case No. D085440 (December 15, 2025), the California Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal held that an employee may pursue a retaliation claim even when the employee’s belief that their employee engaged in protected activity was mistaken. The court addressed whether an employee’s mistaken interpretation of the California Equal Pay Act defeated their whistleblower retaliation claim. The appellate court held that California Labor Code section 1102.5(b) requires only that an employee have an objectively reasonable belief that a violation of law occurred, not that the belief be legally correct.
What does this mean for investigators? This holding has implications for workplace investigations as investigators may need to assess whether the employee reasonably believed the employer violated a law. Investigators should carefully examine what the employee thought, what information they had, how the employee’s conclusions were formed, and whether adverse actions were taken based on assumptions, rumors, or misinterpretations. This requires close attention to internal communications and timing, not just formal complaints.
Key Takeaways for Investigators
With SB 513 and SB 642 providing greater transparency to employees, investigators can expect employers to seek external review when disputes arise. Moreover, legislative changes surrounding pay equity and pay transparency may drive more formal investigations or internal audits of compensation practices.
Under SB 446, data handling and privacy compliance is more important than ever. Investigations often contain sensitive material, and mishandling such material can trigger statutory reporting obligations and liability. Investigators should review and update their internal data and privacy policies and practices to ensure compliance.
Notices under SB 294 and SB 617 require employers to maintain better records, including notice tracking systems. Noncompliance with the new obligations surrounding notice open new claims for employees.
New restrictions on “stay or pay” agreements under AB 692 may require investigators to review specific language in employment contracts and policies.
Conclusion
California’s 2026 employment law changes reinforce a reality many employers already face: workplace investigations are no longer routine human resource exercises. They are legal processes operating in an increasingly complex statutory environment, where employee rights, employer obligations, and judicial scrutiny continue to expand. If you have questions about how these 2026 legal changes affect your workplace investigations, policies, or compliance programs, we strongly encourage you to consult our experienced attorney-investigators here at VM and your employment counsel.
