pexels-alex-green-5699475

Most employers know the value of an exit interview. When an employee resigns, agencies often ask why they are leaving and what could have been done differently. The problem, of course, is that by the time an exit interview takes place, the employee has already decided to move on.

What if agencies asked those questions before employees started looking for the exit?

That is the idea behind a “stay interview”: a conversation with a current employee designed to better understand what keeps them engaged, what challenges they are experiencing, and what might cause them to leave. “Stay interviews” can provide valuable information that agencies can use to improve employee satisfaction and reduce turnover.

This post describes these types of interviews, including their numerous benefits, and concludes with a discussion of some of the legal considerations employers need to navigate in conducting them.

Why Stay Interviews Matter

Finding qualified candidates has become increasingly difficult in many fields, particularly public safety, public works, information technology, and other specialized areas.

At the same time, agencies may overlook one of the most effective retention tools available: asking current employees about their workplace experience before they become dissatisfied enough to leave. Unlike performance evaluations, stay interviews are not intended to assess employee performance. Instead, they are an opportunity for agencies to learn what employees value about their jobs and what improvements might encourage them to remain with the organization.

Even if an agency cannot address every concern, simply asking employees for feedback can demonstrate that leadership is interested in understanding their experiences.

What Should Agencies Ask?

A stay interview does not need to be lengthy or formal. In many cases, a supervisor or manager can conduct a brief conversation focused on a few key questions.

Examples include:

  • What do you enjoy most about your job?
  • What makes your work challenging or frustrating?
  • What motivates you to stay with the agency?
  • Are there skills or experiences you would like to develop?
  • What could the agency do to better support you?

The goal is not to collect perfect data. The goal is to identify trends and opportunities for improvement before retention issues become resignation letters.

Listen for Themes, Not Just Individual Concerns

Looking for recurring themes can help agencies identify issues that may be affecting morale across departments or classifications.

Stay interviews can also help agencies identify strengths. If employees consistently highlight supportive supervisors, meaningful work, or positive workplace culture, leadership can focus on preserving those qualities.

Set Realistic Expectations

One of the biggest mistakes agencies can make is treating a stay interview as a promise session.

Employees may raise concerns that the agency cannot immediately address due to budget constraints, operational needs, collective bargaining obligations, or other considerations. Supervisors should avoid making commitments they may not be able to fulfill. Instead, supervisors can acknowledge concerns, explain that feedback will be considered, and communicate honestly about what changes may or may not be possible.

Employees are often more interested in being heard than receiving an immediate solution.

Public Agencies Should Consider Labor Relations Issues

For public agencies with represented employees, stay interviews may raise labor relations considerations that are not present in a typical exit interview. Before launching a stay interview program, agencies should consider whether the program or the topics discussed could trigger obligations under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (“MMBA”) or other applicable public sector labor relations laws.

One concern is the risk of “direct dealing” with represented employees. If stay interviews are used to solicit employee input regarding wages, hours, benefits, working conditions, or other negotiable subjects, employee organizations may argue that the agency is bypassing the union and communicating directly with represented employees about matters that should be addressed through the collective bargaining process. Agencies should consider discussing the purpose and structure of any stay interview program with the applicable employee organization before implementation and consult counsel regarding any bargaining obligations.

Agencies should also be careful not to create the appearance that employees are being pressured to disclose their views regarding union activities, labor relations issues, or workplace concerns. Questions that employees perceive as coercive or as seeking information about protected concerted activity could create unnecessary labor relations issues. Supervisors conducting stay interviews should receive guidance on appropriate topics and understand how to respond if discussions turn to union-related matters.

Finally, although stay interviews are intended to focus on employee engagement and retention, conversations do not always go as planned. If an interview begins to focus on alleged misconduct, performance deficiencies, or other matters that could reasonably lead to discipline, agencies should be mindful of potential Weingarten rights. Specifically, in represented workplaces, employees may have the right to union representation during an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes could result in disciplinary action. Supervisors should understand when a stay interview may be shifting into a different type of conversation and seek guidance as appropriate. (In addition, for public safety officers and firefighters, stay interviews can carry the same type of risk under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) and the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (FOBRA) respectively. These risks primarily arise when such interviews could be construed as interrogations or investigations that might lead to punitive action, and thus give to rise to procedural protections.)

Remember That Some Issues Require Follow-Up

Although stay interviews are intended as retention tools, they may uncover issues that require additional attention. For example, an employee may report concerns involving harassment, discrimination, workplace safety, or other issues that trigger agency obligations to investigate or take corrective action. Supervisors conducting stay interviews should understand when concerns need to be elevated through established reporting channels.

Agencies may also wish to provide guidance or training to supervisors before implementing a stay interview program to ensure conversations are conducted consistently and appropriately.

Start Small

A stay interview program does not need to be complicated. The most important step is simply creating opportunities for employees to share feedback before they decide to leave.

While exit interviews can help agencies understand why employees left, stay interviews may help agencies learn what they can do to encourage employees to stay. Stay interviews give agencies an opportunity to identify concerns, strengthen employee engagement, and improve retention before turnover occurs.

We are excited to continue our video series – Tips from the Table. In these videos, members of LCW’s Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining practice group will provide various tips that can be implemented at your bargaining tables. We hope that you will find these clips informative and helpful in your negotiations.

pexels-thomas-wilson-1334312084-26604254-275x374

Juneteenth commemorates a pivotal moment in U.S. history—the final enforcement of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1865. Celebrated on June 19, the day marks the end of slavery in the United States and serves as a time to reflect on freedom, justice, equity, and progress. Known in the federal service as Juneteenth National Independence Day, it has been recognized as a federal holiday since 2021, and has prompted many public agencies across the country to reevaluate how they acknowledge and observe this important day.

For California public agencies, the decision to observe Juneteenth brings both legal and operational questions—many of which remain relevant year after year.

Is Juneteenth a Required Holiday for California Public Employers?

While Juneteenth is an official federal holiday, and while California has added it to the list of state holidays, California has not declared it a paid state holiday for state and local government entities employees. As a result, the observance of Juneteenth varies widely across jurisdictions:

  • State government offices typically remain open unless otherwise directed.  Many state employees do have options to observe the holiday through available leave and holiday credit provisions, however.
  • Local government entities (cities, counties, special districts) may adopt policies to observe Juneteenth as a paid holiday or provide alternate ways to commemorate the day.
  • Educational Entities (school and community college districts and county offices of education)—after changes to the Education Code sections 45203 and 88203, effective January 1, 2023, districts added Juneteenth as a recognized, paid holiday for classified (but not certificated or academic) employees.
  • Agency discretion plays a key role. Public agencies must assess whether to formally observe the holiday and how to align that decision with existing employment policies, collective bargaining agreements, and budgetary constraints.

Four Key Considerations for Agencies

1. Review Legal Obligations and Labor Agreements
Check whether your agency’s bargaining agreements, personnel rules, policies, or handbooks list Juneteenth as a holiday or allow for the addition of federal holidays. Your agency also has to comply with obligations to meet-and-confer with employee associations before changing holiday observance policies.

2. Analyze Operational Needs
Determine the impact a Juneteenth holiday would have on essential services, staffing levels, and scheduling. Consider whether alternative forms of observance, such as floating holidays or employee education programs, may be more appropriate.

3. Communicate Early and Clearly
Transparent communication is essential. Employees should understand whether Juneteenth is a working day, a floating holiday, or a paid closure. Clear guidance minimizes confusion and supports consistent application across departments.

4. Consider Voluntary or Educational Programming
Agencies that do not formally observe Juneteenth as a holiday may still recognize it through internal events, guest speakers, historical exhibits, or voluntary learning opportunities. These efforts can foster inclusion and awareness without impacting operations.

Creating a Long-Term Framework

Because Juneteenth is now a national holiday, public agencies may want to proactively develop a consistent, long-term policy. Questions to address include:

  • Will Juneteenth be treated like other federal holidays?  If not, why not?
  • Should employee leave options be adjusted?
  • How will the agency explain and document its approach for employees and the public?

Approaching Juneteenth with clarity, fairness, and consistency allows public employers to stay aligned with evolving norms and employee expectations while remaining operationally sound and legally compliant.

Juneteenth offers a meaningful opportunity for reflection and recognition, and public agencies are responsible to set the tone for its observation. Whether through formal closure, symbolic acknowledgment, or internal education, planning ensures that your agency is prepared—not only for this year, but for years to come.

For questions about implementing or modifying holiday observance policies, consult with your agency counsel or designated labor relations representative.

pexels-kampus-8441774

California public agencies commonly offer a variety of retirement benefits to employees, including defined contribution plans such as 457(b) plans, 401(a) plans, and, in some cases,  401(k) plans or retiree health savings arrangements. While these plans provide valuable retirement security, they also create an often-overlooked administrative responsibility: ensuring that employees complete and maintain current beneficiary designation forms.

A beneficiary designation determines who will receive plan benefits if a participant dies before receiving all benefits payable under the plan. Unlike a will or trust, which generally governs the disposition of a person’s probate estate, retirement plan assets are often distributed according to the beneficiary designation maintained by the plan. As a result, an outdated, incomplete, or missing beneficiary form can create significant problems for surviving family members and the public agency responsible for administering the benefits.

Beneficiary designations are particularly important for 457(b) deferred compensation plans. These plans frequently accumulate substantial account balances over the course of an employee’s career. If a participant dies with an account balance remaining, the plan administrator must determine the proper beneficiary before distributing funds. Similarly, 401(a) plans often provide death benefits or account balances that must be distributed according to the participant’s beneficiary designation. Depending on the plan’s terms, retiree health savings plans and other employer-sponsored benefits arrangements may also require beneficiary elections to direct the payment of remaining benefits upon a participant’s death.

Unfortunately, beneficiary forms are often completed when an employee is first hired and then forgotten. Over a career spanning twenty or thirty years, an employee may marry, divorce, remarry, have children, or experience the death of a previously designated beneficiary. If the employee fails to update the designation, the retirement benefits may be distributed in a manner that no longer reflects the employee’s wishes.

Public agencies can help prevent these issues by regularly reminding employees to review their beneficiary designations. Annual benefits enrollment periods, retirement planning workshops, and major life-event notifications provide excellent opportunities to encourage employees to confirm that their beneficiary information remains current.

Maintaining accurate beneficiary records is only part of the equation. Agencies and plan administrators must also ensure that completed forms are properly retained. When a participant dies, the inability to locate a beneficiary designation can create significant uncertainty. In the absence of a valid form, the plan document may require benefits to be distributed according to a default hierarchy, such as to a surviving spouse, children, estate, or next of kin. These default provisions may not align with the participant’s actual intentions.

Missing beneficiary forms frequently lead to disputes among surviving family members. Former spouses, current spouses, children from prior relationships, and estate representatives may each assert competing claims to the benefits. Agency staff may spend considerable time responding to inquiries, gathering records, coordinating with third-party administrators, and addressing legal challenges. In some cases, disputes may escalate into litigation, requiring agencies to produce decades-old records and defend the administration of the plan.

The consequences can be even more serious when a valid beneficiary designation exists but is not followed. If benefits are distributed to the wrong person despite a properly executed beneficiary form being on file, the intended beneficiary may pursue legal action seeking recovery of the improperly distributed funds. The agency or plan administrator may face allegations that it failed to administer the plan according to its governing documents or neglected its responsibilities in processing the death benefit claim.

To reduce these risks, California public agencies should adopt clear procedures for collecting, storing, and retrieving beneficiary forms. Electronic records should be securely maintained and backed up to ensure accessibility when needed. Agencies should also periodically audit beneficiary records and coordinate with third-party administrators to confirm that beneficiary information maintained by the administrator matches the agency’s records.

Ultimately, beneficiary designation forms are among the most important documents associated with a participant’s retirement benefits. For section 457(b), 401(a), 401(k), retiree health savings, and similar benefits plans, a current and properly maintained beneficiary designation helps ensure that benefits are distributed according to the employee’s wishes. By emphasizing regular updates, maintaining accurate records, and carefully following valid beneficiary elections, California public agencies can protect employees’ families while minimizing administrative burdens, disputes, and potential legal exposure.

pexels-thirdman-8485852

The modern workplace was not designed with every kind of brain in mind, yet an estimated 15-20% of the population is neurodivergent.  This means one in five of your employees may be neurodivergent.  Neurodivergence is a non-medical term used to describe individuals who interact with the world and whose brains function and process information differently from those in the majority of the population.  Neurodivergence can be caused by a medical condition, such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), learning disabilities, and mental health conditions (such as OCD, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia).  However, individuals may identify or be considered neurodiverse without having an underlying medical disability.  Studies show, however, that neurodivergent individuals are underemployed, and when they are employed, often do not disclose their conditions or request accommodations, and feel unsupported in the workplace. Historically, many employers overlooked the strengths of neurodivergent individuals, instead focusing on their differences or challenges in the workplace.  Over time, our society has become more accepting of neurodiversity in the workplace, recognizing the many strengths neurodivergent employees can bring to the workplace, such as seeing things from different perspectives, offering creative solutions, and high attention to detail. However, standard workplace practices, social norms, and hiring practices can create barriers to hiring and retaining these employees.  This blog post will address steps public agencies can take to create a more inclusive hiring environment and workplace for neurodivergent employees.

FEHA and the Interactive Process

The Fair Employment and Housing Act requires California employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ disabilities, which specifically includes mental disabilities.  Mental disabilities are broadly defined and include “any mental or psychological disorder or condition that limits a major life activity.”  The regulations provide as examples learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, and chronic or episodic conditions such as clinical depression, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder.  Under FEHA, upon an employee’s request or when the employer becomes aware of the need of an accommodation, the employer must engage in a good faith interactive process with the employee to provide reasonable accommodations.  Employers have an obligation to initiate the interactive process once they know or should know of the need for an accommodation.  Thus, it is important for employers to be aware of signs an employee might be neurodivergent and in need of an accommodation.

Types of accommodations for neurodivergent employees

This blog post addresses a variety of workplace areas that may present challenges for neurodivergent employees and offers suggested accommodations.  We emphasize that no two neurodivergent employees are identical, and that neurodiversity may arise from a wide range of mental health conditions, learning disabilities, and medical conditions – each with their own strengths and challenges.  These suggestions are intended as starting points for conversation, collaboration, and the interactive process.  Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), for example, is referred to as a “spectrum” because symptoms and their severity can vary significantly from person to person.

Environment and Sensory Accommodations

Some neurodivergent employees may be more sensitive to sensory stimuli, which can impact concentration and productivity.  Potential accommodations may include:

·         Providing noise cancelling headphones;

·         Offering quieter workspaces, alternative work locations, or quiet break spaces;

·         Softer lighting and adjusting lighting where bright or flickering lights may be disruptive;

·         Modifying uniform or dress code requirements that create tactile or sensory challenges;

·         Allowing the use of fidget tools; and

·         Allowing flexible seating arrangements.

Communication Accommodations and Best Practices

Communication styles and preferences may vary among neurodivergent employees. Employers may wish to consider:

·         Using clear and direct communications;

·         Limiting sarcasm, euphemisms, or ambiguous instructions;

·         Providing written instructions or follow-up communications in addition to verbal discussions; and

·         Allowing alternative communication methods, such as email or messaging platforms, where appropriate.

Task Management, Organization, and Technology Accommodations

Certain organizational tools and workplace technologies may assist neurodivergent employees in managing assignments and workflow. Potential accommodations include:

·         Breaking larger projects into smaller, manageable tasks;

·         Providing detailed step-by-step instructions or checklists;

·         Using task-tracking or project management applications; and

·         Allowing assistive technology, such as dictation or voice-to-text software.

Schedule and Break Accommodations

Flexibility in scheduling may help some neurodivergent employees maintain focus and productivity. Potential accommodations may include:

·         Modified break schedules, including shorter and more frequent movement breaks;

·         Flexible work hours or modified schedules; and

·         Telework or hybrid-work arrangements, where feasible.

Communicating Change and Transitions

Some neurodivergent employees may experience difficulty with unexpected changes or transitions. Advance communication regarding schedule disruptions or changes in routine may help employees prepare and adapt more effectively. Examples may include advance notice of:

·         Fire drills;

·         Work-related travel;

·         Changes in reporting structure or job duties; and

·         Holiday events, office closures, or special workplace events.

Changes to Workplace Culture and Hiring Practices

In addition to providing accommodations for individual employees, public agencies can also explore broader workplace practices and organizational culture to make their agencies more accessible and welcoming to neurodivergent individuals.

·         Traditional one-on-one interviews may present challenges for some neurodivergent applicants, including individuals with ASD or ADHD, who may struggle with maintaining eye contact, remaining still, or processing questions in high-pressure settings.  Exploring alternative hiring methods – such as skills-based assessments, work simulations, or group activities – may allow candidates to demonstrate their qualifications more effectively.

·         Providing trainings on neurodiversity, workplace sensitivity, and respectful communications can help foster a more inclusive workplace culture.

·         Employers should clearly communicate workplace expectations, norms, and etiquette, rather than assuming employees intuitively understand unwritten social rules or workplace customs.

·         Supervisors and coworkers should avoid stigmatizing labels or assumptions about employees who communicate or interact differently. Creating a respectful and supportive environment includes learning employees’ communication styles, preferences, and workplace needs.

Public agencies benefit from recruiting and retaining talented employees with a wide range of perspectives, experiences, and ways of thinking.  Neurodivergent employees often bring valuable skills, creativity, innovation, and attention to detail to the workplace.  By fostering inclusive workplace practices and considering a spectrum of accommodations, agencies can better support  neurodivergent employees and help them succeed.  Ultimately, creating a more accessible workplace benefits not only neurodivergent employees, but the workforce as a whole.

pexels-rdne-8033795

Many California public agencies staff summer camps and other recreation activities with seasonal employees, teen workers, coaches, and temporary supervisors.

Below is a short staffing checklist to review before the first day of camp, or before recreation activities commence.

1. Identify Mandated Reporters

Under Penal Code section 11165.7, mandated reporters include an administrator of a public or private day camp, and an administrator or employee of a public or private youth center, youth recreation program, or youth organization. For public agency recreation programs, this generally means camp administrators, recreation program administrators, and employees assigned to youth recreation programs should be treated as mandated reporters and accordingly, they should train covered employees on when and how to report suspected child abuse or neglect and remind them that reporting concerns internally does not replace the employee’s duty to make a mandated report.

2. Complete Background Checks Before Staff Work With Minors

Agencies should determine which employees will supervise or discipline minors, as these employees must undergo a background check under Penal Code section 11105.3. Staff who require clearance should not begin working in youth-facing roles until the clearance has been completed and reviewed.

3. Check Local Camp Rules

Agencies should also confirm whether specific camp roles require additional qualifications before staff begin work. For example, California organized camp rules require programs that are considered an “organized camp” to address staff qualifications, supervision ratios, health supervision, safety procedures, and activity-specific procedures, including for aquatics and other higher-risk activities. Depending on the program this may include:

  • Camp Director: training on the camp’s written operating procedures, emergency plan, supervision rules, and incident reporting procedures. For organized camps, the Director is also responsible for verifying certain staff qualifications and records.
  • Counselors: emergency procedure training, and first aid/CPR training.
  •  Health Supervisor: first aid and CPR certification, and also training on the camp health plan, medication and illness procedures, injury response, parent/guardian notification, and documentation requirements. Organized camp rules require a full-time adult Health Supervisor when campers are present.
  •  Lifeguards, Swim Instructors, And Aquatics Staff: required lifeguard, CPR, first aid, AED, and water safety certifications, plus training on pool rules, emergency rescue procedures, supervision ratios, and incident response.
  •  Drivers And Field Trip Staff: training on transportation procedures, supervision during loading and unloading, emergency contacts, head counts, release procedures, and accident or incident reporting.
  • Coaches, Instructors, And Specialty Activity Staff: verification that they have the skills, certifications, or training needed for the activity they will supervise, especially for higher-risk activities such as aquatics, adventure/challenge activities, horseback riding, or offsite trips.

(17 CCR sections 30704 and 30751)

Public agencies should also check whether their city or county imposes additional camp-specific requirements through local ordinances or health department guidance. For example, Los Angeles County’s Elena Matyas Children’s Camp Safety Ordinance requires children’s camps to verify and document certain staff qualifications before employees or volunteers begin working at camp. This includes required background checks and voluntary disclosures for individuals over age 18 who work or volunteer at the camp, as well as first aid and CPR training for counselors, the Health Supervisor, and the Director. Other counties or cities may have similar rules.  

4. Obtain Proof Of Age For Minor Employees

Many public agencies hire minors to work in summer camps, aquatics programs, youth sports programs, and other seasonal recreation positions. Typically, minors employed in California must obtain a work permit before beginning work. However, both the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the California Department of Education take the position that state and local agencies are exempt from California’s work permit requirement because the child labor statutes do not expressly include public agencies. Public agencies remain subject to the FLSA’s child labor provisions. That means agencies should verify that the minor is old enough to perform the assigned work. California issues Certificates of Age using CDE Form B1-1, Statement of Intent to Employ a Minor and Request for a Work Permit – Certificate of Age, pursuant to Education Code section 49114. In practice, before a minor starts work, the agency should have the minor complete CDE Form B1-1 or otherwise maintain reliable proof of age, and should confirm that the minor’s duties and schedule are appropriate for the position.

5. Train Seasonal And Temporary Staff

For covered employers, seasonal, temporary, or other employees hired to work less than six months must receive harassment prevention training within 30 calendar days after hire or within 100 hours worked, whichever occurs first. Agencies should build required training into pre-season onboarding whenever possible.

6. Prepare Staff For Supervision, Emergencies, And Heat

For outdoor programs, agencies should also train staff on heat illness prevention. Cal/OSHA’s outdoor heat illness prevention standard, 8 CCR section 3395, addresses water, shade, emergency response, high-heat procedures, and training.

Final Check

Before staff report to the summer program, agencies should confirm that required background checks are complete, mandated reporter obligations have been explained, minor employee proof of age is on file, required certifications are verified, local camp rules have been reviewed, and staff understand supervision and emergency procedures.

pexels-marcelochagas-11306763

In the recently published opinion, Grant v. Chapman University, the California Court of Appeal considered whether Chapman University’s publications, course listings, and statements about campus life created an enforceable implied contract to provide in-person instruction amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court held that Chapman University (“Chapman”) did not make a specific, enforceable promise to provide in-person instruction and therefore did not have to refund students’ tuition when classes moved online. California case law provides that an implied promise by a university is enforceable only if it is “specific” and does not merely represent a “general expectation.”

Although this case involves a private educational university, the Court’s reasoning offers guidance for public agencies at large when drafting employee or public-facing communications about services, facilities, programs, and operational expectations. The decision is a helpful reminder that public-facing statements—such as website language, program descriptions, catalogs, FAQs, and service announcements—can create potential risk if they appear to be firm, explicit promises.

The case arose from Chapman’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many colleges and universities nationwide, Chapman closed its campus and moved to online instruction in March 2020 following lockdown orders. Before the Fall 2020 semester, Chapman communicated with students regarding the possibility of returning to campus. In June 2020, Chapman stated its “goal” was to reopen campus and offer some in-person instruction. The following month, Chapman said it remained “optimistic” about resuming on-campus instruction but explained this depended on the authorities’ “support and approval.” In August, Chapman informed students it was unlikely to receive this approval and would proceed with remote instruction.

Two students who had remained enrolled at Chapman and later graduated sued the University, arguing that Chapman had breached their contract of providing an in-person education and should not have charged full tuition once classes moved online. The students claimed Chapman had unfairly or unlawfully represented it would provide an in-person education.

The students identified various Chapman publications and practices, contending they reflected an enforceable promise. These publications and practices included: (1) Chapman’s course registration portal listing class times and locations; (2) a credit-hour policy requiring a weekly hour of “face-to-face contact” per credit-hour for traditional classes but not for online classes; (3) statements in a faculty handbook about on-campus teaching and availability; (4) descriptions of high-end campus facilities in Chapman’s undergraduate and graduate catalogs, which noted they were “for informational purposes and should not be considered as the basis of a contract between students and the University”; and (5) Chapman’s historical practice of offering primarily in-person instruction.

The Court reasoned that, absent a formal agreement between a student and the university, the terms of their contract are implied only based on the parties’ reasonable expectations, in light of all the circumstances. Courts may consider representations in university publications while evaluating expectations. “The reasonableness of the student’s expectation is measured by the definiteness, specificity, or explicit nature of the representation at issue.”

This Court held that the student’s evidence depicted only general expectations rather than a specific binding promise. The Court explained why the specific pieces of evidence offered by the students did not qualify as a specific promise. For example, Chapman’s prior practice of providing in-person instruction does not support a binding promise to do it in perpetuity; the catalogs describing the campus expressly disclaimed any binding promises; and the registration portal listed expected class locations but did not promise that instruction would remain in those locations regardless of changed circumstances.

Also, Chapman’s communications prior to the Fall 2020 semester used aspirational and contingent terminology such as “goal”, “optimistic”, and “support and approval” from authorities. This language served as the opposite of specific promises.

The Court ultimately found that the students received instruction, earned credits, and graduated with degrees; and therefore, received the benefit of their bargain with Chapman. The Court reasoned that Chapman’s extensive statements, which listed class locations and touted on-campus facilities and “face-to-face contact” with faculty, were not sufficiently “specific” to constitute enforceable implied promises.

The Court stressed the importance of this case today, stating that six years after the pandemic started, courts nationwide still grapple with these kinds of claims. Grant is also useful beyond this specific pandemic-related context. Public agencies regularly communicate to program participants, permit applicants, employees, vendors, and members of the public through websites, catalogs, brochures, automated emails, social media posts, agendas, FAQs, and service portals. These communications often describe available services, in-person access, facility hours, program offerings, timelines, processing expectations, and service levels.

Grant offers helpful guidance for public agencies because it reminds them that public-facing statements may later be cited as evidence of an alleged promise, especially when those statements describe services, facilities, program format, timelines, or access. However, public agencies have additional limitations and protections when it comes to implied contracts. Under California law, contracts may be express or implied, and an implied contract may arise from conduct showing a mutual agreement and intent to promise. In Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange, the California Supreme Court confirmed that in the public employment context,  “[g]overnmental subdivisions may be bound by an implied contract if there is no statutory prohibition against such arrangements,” and held that a county may be bound by an implied contract where there is no legislative prohibition against such arrangements, such as a statute or ordinance. The Court further explained that contractual rights may be implied from an ordinance or resolution when the language or surrounding circumstances “clearly evince a legislative intent to create private rights of a contractual nature enforceable against the county.” The Court reasoned that a court charged with deciding whether private contractual rights should be implied from legislation should “proceed cautiously” in identifying a contract within the language of a statute and in defining the contractual obligation.

Thus, while Grant is useful as a practical reminder to avoid overly specific or unconditional public-facing statements, public agencies should also consider whether any alleged promise was properly authorized, whether any statute or ordinance prohibits the arrangement, and whether an ordinance, resolution, or other official agency action clearly shows an intent to create enforceable contractual rights.

Agencies should still feel compelled to provide employees and the public with helpful information. However, agencies should distinguish between describing current operations and making definite commitments where those commitments do not exist. Public agencies should also pay attention to disclaimers. In Grant, Chapman’s catalog disclaimers helped show that descriptions of campus facilities were informational rather than contractual. Similar language can be useful for employee and public-facing materials. Agencies may wish to state that certain services are subject to change based on operational needs or other circumstances. Any disclaimers should be visible, understandable, and consistent with the agency’s actual practices. Agencies also should avoid absolute language unless the agency intends to be bound by it.

Grant ultimately reinforces an important but sometimes overlooked principle: public-facing statements matter. Courts may distinguish between general expectations and enforceable promises, but the more specific, definite, and unconditional a statement is, the more likely it may be characterized as, or cited as evidence of, a promise. Public agencies can reduce risk by communicating clearly, accurately, and flexibly – especially when circumstances may require changes to services offered.

Employers should contact their trusted legal advisors if they have any questions regarding whether their employee or public facing statements can create unintended obligations or contractual rights.

pexels-googledeepmind-18069157

As California public agencies increasingly experiment with generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools like ChatGPT, a critical question is no longer theoretical: are AI prompts and outputs subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”)?

Recent reporting and public records requests suggest the answer may soon be tested in real time—and that agencies should prepare now. Just as importantly, these developments highlight a parallel concern: how AI use may affect public trust in government communications.

Public Records Requests Are Already Targeting AI Use

A recent California Public Records Act request submitted to a California city sought “generative AI records” and information about how employees interact with AI systems. This request reflects a growing interest by researchers and the public in understanding how government agencies are using AI tools in their day-to-day operations.

Although the request’s outcome remains to be seen, it signals a clear trend:
requesters are beginning to treat AI-generated content and usage logs as potential public records.

For California agencies, this raises immediate questions about whether:

  • AI prompts entered by employees must be retained.
  • AI-generated outputs are disclosable.
  • Agencies can locate and produce these records if requested.

Real-World Example: AI Records Already Produced Through Public Records Laws

A recent investigation by Cascade PBS into AI use by Washington state cities demonstrates how quickly this issue is evolving.

In that investigation:

  • Journalists obtained ChatGPT conversation logs from city officials through public records requests.
  • The records showed employees using AI to draft:
    • emails to constituents
    • mayoral letters
    • policy documents
    • speeches and press releases

In some cases, AI-generated language appeared in final communications sent on behalf of public officials.

This reporting is significant for California agencies for two reasons:

  1. AI prompts and outputs were treated as disclosable records.
    The cities produced ChatGPT conversation logs in response to records requests.
  2. AI is being used in outward-facing communications.
    AI tools are not just internal aids—they are shaping the tone and substance of messages sent to the public.

AI Content May Fall Within the CPRA’s Broad Definition of “Public Records”

Under the CPRA, a “public record” includes any writing relating to the conduct of the public’s business that is prepared, used, or retained by a public agency.

Applied to AI tools, the following may be the case:

  • Prompts are “prepared” by employees.
  • Outputs are “used” in agency business (e.g., drafting communications or policies).
  • Logs or histories may be “retained,” even if stored by a third-party vendor.

The Washington state example demonstrates that, in practice, these materials can be collected and produced—reinforcing the likelihood that similar records could be subject to CPRA in California.

Beyond Compliance: Public Trust and Authenticity Concerns

The Cascade PBS reporting also raises an important public relations and governance issue: when government communications are generated—wholly or partially—by AI, they may appear less authentic to the public.

For example:

  • Constituents may assume communications reflect the personal views or voice of an elected official.
  • AI-generated messages may feel generic, overly polished, or disconnected from community context.
  • Disclosure of AI use through public records requests could lead to public skepticism or criticism.

Even where AI is used appropriately as a drafting tool, agencies should consider how its use might be perceived if:

  • ChatGPT logs are later disclosed.
  • Drafts show heavy reliance on AI-generated language.
  • There is no transparency about AI involvement.

In short, the issue is not only whether AI-generated content is disclosable—but how it will be received once disclosed.

Key Risk: Where Are AI Records Stored?

Unlike traditional documents, AI-generated content may not reside in agency systems. Instead, it may be:

  • Stored on third-party platforms.
  • Maintained in vendor-controlled logs.
  • Not formally saved by the employee at all.

However, as the Washington records requests show, the location of the data does not necessarily prevent disclosure if the agency can access or retrieve it.

This creates practical challenges:

  • Does the agency have access to employee AI usage logs?
  • Are there retention or deletion policies in place?
  • Can the agency respond to a CPRA request for AI records in a timely manner?

Practical Steps for California Public Agencies

Given these developments, agencies should assume that AI-related records may be requested and potentially disclosable—and scrutinized.

To prepare, agencies should consider:

  • Adopting an AI Use Policy
    Address what employees can input into AI tools and whether prompts/outputs must be saved.
  • Considering Transparency Practices
    Evaluate whether and when to disclose AI assistance in public-facing communications.
  • Evaluating Vendor Capabilities
    Determine whether AI platforms retain user inputs and whether those records can be retrieved.
  • Training Employees
    Make clear that AI use in the workplace may generate public records—and may be publicly reviewed.
  • Coordinating with IT and Legal
    Ensure AI usage aligns with records retention schedules and CPRA compliance.
  • Limiting Use for Sensitive or High-Profile Communications
    Exercise caution when using AI for communications that may impact public trust.

Key Takeaways

  • Public records requests are already targeting AI usage, including in California.
  • Investigations show that ChatGPT prompts and outputs can be produced as public records.
  • AI-generated content used in agency business will likely fall within CPRA’s broad definition of “public records.”
  • Disclosure of AI use may raise public trust and authenticity concerns.
  • Agencies must be prepared not only for compliance, but for public scrutiny of how AI shapes government communications.

We are excited to introduce our video series – Wage & Hour Issues in the Workplace. In these videos, members of LCW’s Wage & Hour practice group will provide various tips that can be implemented in your workplace. We hope that you will find these clips informative and helpful!

Image 3

While many employers view implementation of workplace technology as a managerial prerogative, labor unions are increasingly framing issues such as electronic surveillance of employees, workplace algorithmic decision-making, and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven management tools as core terms and conditions of employment and a new frontier for labor rights.

A set of proposed bills before the California State Legislature in the current 2025-2026 session target the growing role of artificial intelligence, automation, and surveillance in the workplace. Major unions such as the Teamsters and the California Nurses Association are signaling support for these bills and for regulation of workplace technology in general.

Public sector employers should be aware of such efforts in order to prepare for potential shifts in the law. New bills before the legislature seek to address the following issues:

  • AI’s ability to directly shape core employment decisions without restriction, and the use of workplace technology to influence decisions about hiring, discipline, scheduling, and productivity.
  • Potential job displacement and restructuring as a result of AI.
  • Workplace surveillance without the knowledge of employees.
  • Algorithmic management (e.g., productivity quotas, real-time tracking) which increase the pace and stress of work, and potentially compromise workplace safety.

Notably, some of the interests addressed in the proposed legislation correspond with the United States Department of Labor’s “Artificial Intelligence and Worker Well-Being: Principles and Best Practices for Developers and Employers,” issued in October 2024 and subsequently revoked following the change in administration in January of 2025.

A Push to Regulate AI and Algorithmic Management in the Workplace:

A central theme of the current bills before the State Legislature is limitation on the use of AI in employment decision-making. For example:

Senate Bill 947 (McNerney): Coined the “No Robot Bosses Act,” this bill would prohibit employers from relying solely on algorithmic decision-making in discipline or termination. Employers would be required to ensure human oversight and maintain corroborating evidence beyond algorithmic outputs. The bill also mandates disclosure to employees when such tools are used. The bill is part of a broader push to govern “algorithmic management” in the workplace. It is notably similar to Senate Bill 7 which was vetoed by Governor Newsom last year over concern that it imposed overly-broad restrictions on employer use of such tools. In its current form, if passed, this bill would apply to California local government employers.

Similarly, Assembly Bill 1883 (Bryan) takes aim at AI-driven surveillance tools, prohibiting technologies that infer personal information about workers or that may be considered invasive or biased, including facial recognition technology and an employee’s neural data. This bill raises questions about the continued viability of tools used for productivity monitoring, security, and workplace analytics. In its current form, if passed, this bill would apply to California local government employers.

Assembly Bill 2027 (Ward) restricting employers from using worker data to train AI systems that could automate or replace jobs. In its current form, if passed, this bill would apply to California local government employers.

More generally, Senate Bill 813 would create the California AI Standards and Safety Commission and empower the commission to identify the need for development of standards and regulations related to AI, and to take certain actions related to the safety of artificial intelligence.

Taken together, these measures reflect a policy objective of slowing or reshaping AI adoption in employment contexts, particularly where it may displace human labor or reduce managerial discretion.

Expansion of Notice and Transparency Requirements:

Major pillars of the legislative agenda are notice and transparency. For example,

Assembly Bill 1898 (Schultz) would require employers to provide written advance notice to workers that a workplace AI tool was used to assist the employer in making employment-related decisions or to surveil workers in the workplace. Employers would be required to disclose what data is collected, how it is collected, and how it will be used, and would require an employer to maintain an updated list of all workplace AI tools currently in use and their impact on jobs, as specified, and to provide the list to workers annually. In its current form, if passed, this bill would apply to California local government employers.

Senate Bill 951 (Reyes) This bill would establish the California Worker Technological Displacement Act, which would require an employer to provide at least a 90-day advanced written notice before any technological displacement affecting 25 or more workers or 25 percent of the workforce, whichever is less. Employers that lay off workers, reduce hiring, or otherwise alter workforce decisions due to AI or automation would need to provide advance notice to employees and government entities. The bill also creates a right for laid-off workers of employers with more than 100 employees to bid on open positions within the employer. In its current form, if passed, this bill would apply to California local government employers.

Senate Bill238 (Smallwood-Cuevas) would require an employer to annually provide a notice to the Department of Industrial Relations of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace. The bill would require the department to make the notice publicly available on the department’s internet website within 30 days of receiving the notice. The bill would define “employer” to include public employers.

Industry-Specific and Job Protection Measures

The legislative package also includes targeted efforts to preserve human roles in specific sectors. These bills draw bright-line rules to preserve human involvement in roles viewed as critical to safety, professional judgement, and public trust.

Assembly Bill 2575 (Ortega) would regulate AI in healthcare settings to ensure that professionals retain independent clinical judgment. Under the bill, a worker providing direct patient care would have the protected right to be free to use their professional judgment to make assessments and decisions within their scope of practice as appropriate for their patients. In its current form, if passed, this bill would apply to California local government-operated facilities.

Senate Bill 928 (Cervantes) would prohibit California State universities from replacing faculty with AI.

Senate Bill 1011 (McNerney) mandates human oversight and monitoring of automated decision systems in critical utilities infrastructure, and restricts job displacement. Covered utilities under the bill include publicaly owned utilities.

Key Takeaways for Employers

This legislative package is, in many respects, unprecedented. If enacted, these measures would:

  • Significantly increase compliance burdens related to AI and workforce technology deployment;
  • Limit the ability to use data in developing or refining AI tools;
  • Require new layers of documentation, notice, and justification for operational decisions; and
  • Introduce legal uncertainty around common workplace technologies.

Employers should anticipate heightened scrutiny from employees and labor organizations regarding the use of technology. Already, disputes over electronic surveillance, automated discipline, and use of algorithms are surfacing in collective bargaining, and they are often coupled with requests for information about how systems operate, what data is collected, and how decisions are made. In this environment, employers that fail to anticipate union interest risk not only legal exposure but also operational disruption and reputational harm. By contrast, employers that engage early, evaluate bargaining obligations before implementation, and build transparency and guardrails into their technology rollouts are better positioned to preserve flexibility, reduce conflict, and realize the intended efficiencies of new tools.

Employers should be aware that PERB law already establishes bargaining obligations related to some of the changes presented by the proposed legislation, such as workplace surveillance and changes to workload. For example, PERB has held that a District’s decision to install security surveillance cameras in areas where employees work or take breaks has reasonably foreseeable effects on discipline and performance evaluations, both matters within the scope of representation. (Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Dec. No. 2313.) PERB has also held that an employer must bargain over changes to employee assignments or duties if the change materially alters employees’ workload. (County of Santa Clara (2022) PERB Decision No. 2820-M.)

Looking Ahead

The workplace is becoming a primary battleground for regulating emerging technologies. While many of these proposals may be amended, face opposition, be voted down, or be vetoed by the Governor, they provide a clear roadmap of labor’s priorities. Public sector employers in California should begin evaluating their current use of AI, data collection practices, and workforce planning strategies now. Proactive assessment and strategic planning will be essential as the legal landscape continues to evolve.