Summary of March 2026 Labor Law Updates for Orange County, California
March 2026 brought several notable California labor and employment law developments, with the biggest updates coming from appellate decisions and agency enforcement rather than new statewide legislation. For employees, HR professionals, and compliance leaders tracking California labor law, these rulings and settlements touched wage-and-hour disputes, retaliation, harassment, fair-chance hiring, and workplace pay equity.
For March 2026, California labor law developments centered on retaliation, wage-and-hour litigation, anti-harassment enforcement, fair-chance hiring, and pay-equity oversight. Employees, HR professionals, and business leaders should continue watching California workplace rights issues closely, especially where internal complaints, classification disputes, and harassment prevention practices are involved.
If you have questions about how these March 2026 employment updates may affect your workplace or your legal rights, contact HKM Employment Attorneys for guidance.
Ehrenkranz v. San Francisco Zen Center — Court Ruling
Date: March 2, 2026
Summary:
In Ehrenkranz v. San Francisco Zen Center, California’s First District Court of Appeal held that the ministerial exception does not automatically bar wage-and-hour claims against a religious organization. The plaintiff, a former participant in the Zen Center’s residential training programs, alleged unpaid wages and penalties for work he performed. The court said employment claims by workers connected to religious organizations still require a closer look at whether resolving the case would actually entangle the court in religious doctrine or church governance.
Implications:
This is an important California workplace rights decision for religiously affiliated employers and workers alike. It suggests that some wage-and-hour claims may still proceed even where the employer raises First Amendment defenses, especially when the dispute centers on compensation for commercial or operational work rather than core religious decision-making.
Sorokunov v. NetApp, Inc. — Court Ruling
Date: March 3, 2026
Summary:
In Sorokunov v. NetApp, Inc., the First District Court of Appeal addressed a commission dispute and a related PAGA claim. The former employee argued that NetApp’s compensation plan unlawfully reduced earned commissions through a “windfall” provision. The court’s ruling, as summarized in the opinion materials, held that after the employee lost his individual Labor Code claims in arbitration, he could not continue pursuing a representative PAGA case in civil court based on the same alleged violations.
Implications:
For California employers, this decision underscores how decisive individual arbitration can be in wage-and-hour litigation. For workers, it is a reminder that the outcome of individual claims may directly affect whether a broader representative PAGA action can continue.
Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District — Court Ruling
Date: March 18, 2026
Summary:
In Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District, the Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment in a sexual-harassment case brought by a nursing student who alleged her clinical supervisor harassed her and retaliated after she rejected his advances. The court held that a postsecondary student serving in a clinical role could qualify as an “unpaid intern” under FEHA, giving her standing to pursue FEHA claims. The court also found triable issues on related claims and held that her notice substantially complied with the Government Claims Act. The opinion was filed on March 18 and later certified for publication in April.
Implications:
This ruling matters well beyond higher education. In California, organizations that use students, trainees, or clinical participants should not assume FEHA applies only to traditional payroll employees. The decision expands the practical compliance importance of anti-harassment policies, reporting channels, and retaliation protections for unpaid workplace participants.
Guardian Storage Centers v. Simpson — Court Ruling
Date: March 24, 2026
Summary:
In Guardian Storage Centers v. Simpson, the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed what happens when former employees provide allegedly privileged company emails to their lawyers in support of employment claims. The dispute arose out of lawsuits alleging wrongful termination, retaliation, harassment, and related claims. The appellate court held that the trial court used the wrong legal framework when it refused to disqualify counsel, and it sent the matter back for reconsideration under the proper privilege and disqualification standards.
Implications:
This decision is especially relevant for California employment litigants and HR leaders dealing with internal investigations, executive departures, and document handling. It highlights the importance of protecting privileged communications and carefully managing how internal records are preserved, accessed, and used once workplace disputes turn into litigation.
Pechkis v. Trustees of the California State University — Court Ruling
Date: March 24, 2026
Summary:
In Pechkis v. Trustees of the California State University, two tenured professors alleged discrimination, hostile work environment, FEHA retaliation, and whistleblower retaliation after reporting conduct by a department chair. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the university’s anti-SLAPP motion, explaining that the presence of some protected communications in the factual background did not mean the entire retaliation case arose from protected activity.
Implications:
This ruling matters for California employers defending retaliation and whistleblower claims. It reinforces that employers cannot automatically knock out a retaliation suit through an anti-SLAPP motion just because some allegations involve internal investigations or official communications.
New State Pay Data Release Highlights Ongoing Pay Gaps — Agency Development
Date: March 26, 2026
Summary:
On Equal Pay Day, the California Civil Rights Department released 2024 pay-data statistics covering nearly 8 million workers and about 170,000 California businesses. CRD reported that women and people of color of all genders remained more likely to be concentrated in lower-paid job categories and among the state’s lowest-paid workers, despite California’s strong equal pay laws.
Implications:
For employers, this March 2026 employment update is a reminder that California pay equity enforcement remains active and data-driven. Employers with 100 or more employees should expect continued scrutiny of compensation patterns, job classification practices, and workforce demographics. For employees, the release reinforces the continued relevance of California workplace rights related to equal pay and discrimination.
Tehama County Agrees to Fair Chance Act Reforms — Agency Enforcement Action
Date: March 18, 2026
Summary:
The California Civil Rights Department announced a $50,000 settlement with Tehama County over alleged Fair Chance Act violations. According to CRD, the county agreed to take compliance steps and compensate an applicant after a state investigation into hiring practices affecting applicants with arrest or conviction histories.
Implications:
This is a practical reminder that California’s Fair Chance Act still presents real enforcement risk. Employers should review job-posting language, background-check timing, individualized assessment procedures, and adverse-action notices to reduce exposure under California hiring law.
SCBWI Retaliation Settlement — Agency Enforcement Action
Date: March 27, 2026
Summary:
The California Civil Rights Department and Labor Commissioner’s Office announced a settlement with the Society of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators over alleged retaliation against a former employee who made protected complaints about race discrimination and unequal pay. The settlement required training, policy changes, and compensation for the former employee.
Implications:
This California labor law development shows how retaliation issues can trigger parallel state enforcement attention, particularly when complaints involve both discrimination and pay practices. Employers should treat internal complaints seriously and ensure managers understand that protected complaints cannot lawfully be met with punishment or adverse treatment.
EEOC Settlement With Justin Vineyards & Winery and The Wonderful Company — Federal Enforcement Action
Date: March 27, 2026
Summary:
The EEOC announced that Justin Vineyards & Winery and The Wonderful Company agreed to pay $1.49 million to resolve a federal lawsuit alleging female employees were subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation. According to the EEOC, the lawsuit alleged years of offensive remarks, advances, unwanted touching, and inadequate handling of complaints, with some workers allegedly forced to quit.
Implications:
For California employers, especially in hospitality, agriculture, food service, and related industries, this settlement is a strong reminder that harassment prevention is not just a policy issue but an enforcement priority. Employers should revisit complaint channels, supervisor training, investigation practices, and anti-retaliation safeguards.
EEOC Settlement With Fresh Venture Foods, Gold Coast Packing, and Babé Farms — Federal Enforcement Action
Date: March 27, 2026
Summary:
The EEOC also announced a $900,000 settlement with Santa Maria-based Fresh Venture Foods, Gold Coast Packing, and Babé Farms in a sexual-harassment and retaliation case. The agency said the lawsuit involved class claims and alleged ongoing harassment of employees over multiple years.
Implications:
This development reinforces that agricultural and food-processing employers in California remain under close scrutiny for workplace harassment and retaliation issues. For HR teams and compliance leaders, it is another signal to prioritize multilingual reporting options, prompt investigations, and anti-retaliation enforcement at all levels of management.
Specialized Bicycle Settlement Over Complaint Handling — Agency Enforcement Action
Date: March 30, 2026
Summary:
The California Civil Rights Department announced a settlement with Specialized Bicycle Components to resolve alleged failures to properly document and address discrimination complaints. CRD said the settlement required the company to revamp its human resources practices.
Implications:
This update is less about a new legal rule and more about compliance expectations under California employment law. Employers should review whether complaint intake, documentation, follow-up, and investigation protocols are consistent, timely, and well documented, because failures in process can become enforcement issues of their own.
Conclusion: Looking Back on California’s Labor Law Updates from March 2026
California courts are increasingly scrutinizing wage-and-hour violations, discrimination, contract breaches, and severance and separation agreements—making local counsel essential. At HKM Employment Attorneys in Orange County, our Irvine-based team led by Cecilia Brennan has secured over $250 million for employees in all facets of employment law, including wrongful termination, wage claims, contract review, and more. Recognized by Super Lawyers and peer-rated AV, we provide responsive, no-fear advocacy and help clients navigate pre-litigation strategies and courtroom actions. If the latest California rulings resonate with your experience, reach out to our Orange County office to explore how we can stand with you.
