June 2026 Labor Law Updates for Los Angeles, California
June brought several important California labor law developments involving employment arbitration, federal-sector collective bargaining, union activity, and workplace safety. This June 2026 employment update from HKM Employment Attorneys summarizes the changes most relevant to California employees, employers, HR professionals, and compliance leaders.
These June 2026 developments show that California workplace rights continue to be shaped by courts, federal labor authorities, and active Cal/OSHA enforcement. Employees or employers with questions about arbitration, wage claims, union activity, retaliation, or workplace safety can contact HKM Employment Attorneys to discuss their legal options.
Orr v. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Employment Arbitration Ruling
Date: June 9, 2026
Summary:
In Orr v. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 25-2330, a former seasonal United Parcel Service employee brought individual, class, and Private Attorneys General Act claims arising from alleged California wage violations. A federal district court compelled her individual claims to arbitration without deciding whether the Federal Arbitration Act or the California Arbitration Act governed the agreement.
The Ninth Circuit granted the employee’s petition for a writ of mandamus. It held that the district court committed clear legal error by leaving the choice of governing arbitration law, including the possible application of the Federal Arbitration Act’s transportation-worker exemption, for the arbitrator to decide. The court directed the district court to vacate its order and determine the legal basis for compelling arbitration before sending the dispute to an arbitrator.
Implications:
The ruling reinforces the courts’ gatekeeping role in California employment arbitration disputes. Employers cannot assume that a delegation clause permits an arbitrator to decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act applies in the first place. Employees working in transportation-related positions may also have stronger grounds to challenge arbitration orders when a court has not addressed the federal statute’s transportation-worker exemption.
American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump — Federal Labor and Collective Bargaining Ruling
Date: June 17, 2026
Summary:
In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, Case No. 25-4014, several unions challenged an executive order excluding designated federal agencies and subdivisions from collective bargaining requirements under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. The unions argued that the order was issued in retaliation for their lawsuits and public criticism of the administration.
In an amended opinion, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the federal district court had jurisdiction to hear the unions’ claims. However, it vacated a preliminary injunction that had blocked the executive order. The court concluded that the unions had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success because the government presented evidence that the exclusions would have been adopted based on national-security considerations regardless of the unions’ protected activity.
Implications:
The decision may affect federal employees and unions operating throughout California, particularly those representing workers in agencies covered by the executive order. The ruling does not finally resolve the underlying lawsuit, but it permits the challenged collective bargaining exclusions to remain in effect while the case proceeds.
Cal/OSHA Issues Statewide Heat-Illness Compliance Reminder — Workplace Safety Guidance
Date: June 10, 2026
Summary:
As high temperatures were forecast across the Sacramento Valley, Central Valley, inland Bay Area, Mendocino County, and other regions, Cal/OSHA reminded employers of their obligations under California’s indoor and outdoor heat-illness prevention standards.
For most covered indoor workplaces, including warehouses, restaurants, and manufacturing facilities, employers must take protective measures when temperatures reach 82 degrees. Outdoor employers must provide drinking water, access to shade when temperatures exceed 80 degrees, and cool-down rest periods when requested. Agriculture, construction, landscaping, oil and gas extraction, and certain transportation operations face additional high-heat procedures when outdoor temperatures reach 95 degrees.
Implications:
California employers should maintain a written heat-illness prevention plan, train workers and supervisors, and confirm that employees have access to water, shade or cool-down areas, and appropriate rest periods. Workers who are denied these protections may raise safety concerns or submit a confidential complaint to Cal/OSHA.
Cal/OSHA Announces Trench-Safety Enforcement Actions — Workplace Safety Enforcement
Date: June 15, 2026
Summary:
During National Trench Safety Stand Down Week, Cal/OSHA urged construction and utility employers to review excavation-safety requirements following multiple serious and fatal trench incidents. The agency reported issuing approximately 90 trench-safety violations connected to injuries and deaths between 2021 and 2025.
Cal/OSHA highlighted several recent enforcement actions, including proposed penalties of $160,000 each against Blackhawk Electric Company and W.E. O’Neill Construction Company of California. The City of San Diego Public Utilities Department faced proposed penalties of $297,850 following a trench collapse that hospitalized two employees. Two South San Francisco plumbing companies were assessed combined fines of $529,640 after a worker was buried and injured in a separate collapse.
Implications:
California construction employers must evaluate excavation hazards and use proper protective systems, including shoring, shielding, or sloping where required. The announcement also demonstrates that trench violations can result in substantial civil penalties and, in serious cases, criminal referrals.
Cocom v. ABM Aviation, Inc. — Wage-and-Hour Arbitration Ruling
Date: June 23, 2026
Summary:
In Cocom v. ABM Aviation, Inc., Case No. 25-3246, a former airport janitor filed a proposed class action alleging wage-and-hour violations. A federal district court found the employee’s arbitration agreement procedurally and substantively unconscionable and refused to enforce it.
The Ninth Circuit reversed. It concluded that the agreement was limited to employment-related disputes and was materially different from arbitration provisions previously rejected by California courts for excessive scope, duration, or lack of mutuality. The court also held that any remaining problematic provisions could be severed without invalidating the entire agreement.
Implications:
The ruling provides California employers with additional support for enforcing carefully drafted employment arbitration agreements. It also shows that courts must analyze the exact language of an agreement rather than treating it as invalid merely because it resembles provisions rejected in another case. Employees challenging arbitration will generally need to identify terms that create both procedural and substantive unfairness.
Fifth Circuit Partially Enforces NLRB Order Against Starbucks — Union and Labor Relations Ruling
Date: June 23, 2026
Summary:
The Fifth Circuit reviewed an NLRB order involving alleged unfair labor practices at a Starbucks store in Sylmar, California, before a 2022 union election. The NLRB had found that Starbucks made unlawful threats, engaged in coercive conduct, and discharged an employee because of union activity.
The appeals court upheld two unlawful-threat findings and one finding of unlawful interrogation. However, it rejected several other findings for lack of substantial evidence and overturned the conclusion that Starbucks unlawfully discharged the employee. The court remanded the case to the NLRB for further proceedings. It did not review the Board’s direction for a second election because that issue was not yet subject to appellate review.
Implications:
The decision illustrates the detailed factual review applied to employer statements, questioning, and disciplinary actions during union campaigns. California employers should train managers to avoid statements that could be interpreted as threats or coercive questioning. Employees retain federal protections against retaliation, intimidation, and interference when discussing or supporting union representation.
Conclusion: Looking Back on California’s Labor Law Updates from June 2026
With the latest California court decisions on wrongful termination, wage-and-hour disputes, harassment, and discrimination making headlines, local legal guidance is more vital than ever. At HKM Employment Attorneys in Los Angeles, our team—led by local attorney Chaka Okadigbo—has extensive experience helping employees across all industries stand up to major employers, from Fortune 500 firms to startups. We handle everything from contract breaches and discrimination to hostile work environment and severance matters, always with expert representation and personalized advocacy. If recent case outcomes in California resonate with your experience, don’t hesitate—reach out to our Los Angeles office to see how we can help you enforce your workplace rights.
