Summary of July 2025 Labor Law Updates for Riverside, California
Here is your monthly legal roundup of key California labor and employment law developments from July 2025—designed for employees, HR professionals, and compliance leaders. Brought to you by our Riverside team at HKM Employment Attorneys, this update highlights major court rulings, regulatory shifts, and new legislation impacting workplace rights.
In July 2025, California saw significant court rulings refining discrimination, arbitration, PAGA actions, and remote work parameters—alongside emerging statutory and regulatory shifts around crime victim rights and AI in employment. Employers should work with HR, legal, and policy teams to update agreements, compliance programs, and training accordingly. For tailored guidance or assistance navigating these changes, please contact HKM Employment Attorneys at https://hkm.com.
Thomas v. Corbyn Restaurant Dev. Corp. — Court Ruling
Date: July 2025
Summary: In this personal injury settlement case, defense counsel wired settlement funds to an account based on fraudulent (“spoofed”) email instructions from an imposter posing as plaintiff’s counsel. The court found the defendant bore the risk of loss for wiring to the imposter’s account.
Implications: Although not strictly employment-related, the case underscores the importance of verifying payment instructions—relevant for employers handling settlements or payroll funds.
CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Headless” PAGA Action) — Court Ruling
Date: July 2025
Summary: The court held that PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) claims may proceed even when brought by an employee without naming other specific aggrieved employees—a so-called “headless” action.
California Employment Law Update
Implications: Employers should be prepared for PAGA actions filed by a single plaintiff acting on behalf of unnamed coworkers. The decision could broaden the scope of recovery and litigation risk.
Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC — Court Ruling
Date: July 2025
Summary: The appellate court found the arbitration agreement unconscionable. It was an adhesive contract buried among 31 documents, rushed for signature to begin work and lacking meaningful negotiation.
California Employment Law Update
Implications: Employers should carefully review their arbitration agreements for fairness and clarity. Rushing or obscuring arbitration clauses can render them unenforceable in California courts.
Lampkin v. County of Los Angeles — Court Ruling
Date: July 2025
Summary: A deputy sheriff’s unsuccessful whistleblower claim did not entitle him to attorney’s fees. The court denied the fee request.
Implications: A failed whistleblower claim—even with good intentions—may not carry a fee award. Employers and counsel should weigh litigation costs and the evidentiary probability of success in such cases.
Allos v. Poway Unified School District — Court Ruling
Date: July 2025
Summary: An employee’s refusal to return to in-person work post-COVID did not qualify as a disability under FEHA. Remote work preference alone doesn’t meet disability protections.
Implications: Employers have discretion to require on-site work when remote arrangements are not medically required. FEHA does not extend protections for convenience-based remote work.
Carranza v. City of Los Angeles — Court Ruling
Date: July 2025
Summary: A $4 million verdict was upheld after indirect exposure to harassing conduct by coworkers. An LAPD captain was targeted by a circulated topless photo causing a hostile work environment.
California Employment Law Update
Implications: Employers may be liable for harassment claims even when the conduct isn’t directly toward the claimant. Training, reporting protocols, and timely interventions are critical to mitigate risk.
AB 2499—New Notice Requirement for Crime Victims — Legislation
Date: Effective July 2025 (CRD to publish form by July 1, 2025)
Summary: AB 2499 expands leave and accommodation rights for employees who are victims of violent crimes and requires employers to provide written notice of these rights—initially via a CRD form expected by July 1.
Implications: Employers must update onboarding materials and policies once the Civil Rights Department publishes the required notice. Ensure employees—both new and current—are informed of their leave and safety-related rights under FEHA.
AI Regulations under FEHA — Regulatory Update
Date: Approved July 30, 2025; Effective October 1, 2025
Summary: California’s Civil Rights Council updated FEHA to apply to employment-related automated decision-making systems (e.g., AI tools for hiring, retention, promotion). Employers must ensure AI systems comply with anti-discrimination laws.
Implications: Employers leveraging AI for decision-making must audit those systems for bias, discrimination risk, and legal compliance. Training and oversight systems should be established ahead of the October effective date.
Conclusion: Looking Back on California’s Labor Law Updates from July 2025
With California courts increasingly focusing on wage theft, workplace discrimination, wrongful termination, contract disputes, whistleblower rights, and data breach incidents, it’s essential to have trusted local representation. At HKM Employment Attorneys in Riverside, Managing Partner Rebecca Rojas and attorney Seungjai (SJ) Oh lead a powerful practice that has secured over $250 million for employees since 2003. Their team handles everything from breach of contract and employment retaliation to ethics investigations, and hostile work environment cases—all under a no‑fee‑unless‑we‑win promise. If recent Riverside rulings resonate with your experience, contact our Riverside office to explore how we can defend your workplace rights.
