New Dimensions of Leave: What AB 2499’s Victim Protection Expansion Means for Employer Handbooks and Liability

A Seismic Shift in California’s Employee Protection Landscape

Effective January 1, 2025, California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2499 represents not merely an incremental update to existing law but a fundamental re-architecture of victim protection in the workplace. This legislation fundamentally alters the legal landscape for California employers by expanding the scope of protected leave, broadening the definition of who qualifies for protection, and establishing new, complex duties regarding reasonable accommodations. However, the single most consequential change—and the central thesis of this analysis—is the law’s migration from the relative confines of the California Labor Code to the formidable framework of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).1

This jurisdictional shift is far more than an administrative re-shuffling. By repealing Labor Code Sections 230 and 230.1 and recasting these protections as unlawful employment practices under FEHA, AB 2499 elevates violations from the category of discrete labor infractions to the same legal stratum as discrimination and harassment based on race, gender, disability, or any other protected class.5 This recasting exponentially increases the potential liability for employers, transforming what might have been a manageable administrative claim into a high-stakes civil rights lawsuit with the potential for uncapped emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and, critically, the recovery of attorney’s fees for prevailing plaintiffs.

For employment lawyers, litigators, and in-house counsel, understanding this paradigm shift is paramount. The era of treating victim-related leave as a niche compliance item is over. AB 2499 demands a comprehensive overhaul of employer policies, a rigorous new approach to manager training, and a heightened sensitivity in handling employee disclosures. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the law’s provisions, moving beyond a surface-level summary to deconstruct the new vectors of liability and offer a strategic blueprint for compliance. The analysis will proceed by first examining the profound implications of the jurisdictional move to FEHA, followed by a deep dive into the law’s expanded definitions, a detailed mapping of the new leave and accommodation entitlements, and a practical guide to navigating the compliance gauntlet of notice requirements, handbook revisions, and essential training protocols.

II. The Jurisdictional Earthquake: Analyzing the Move from the Labor Code to FEHA

The strategic heart of AB 2499 lies in its repeal of Labor Code Sections 230 and 230.1 and the creation of a new, consolidated provision, Government Code § 12945.8, squarely within FEHA.8 This legislative maneuver is not a simple “copy and paste” of old rules into a new statutory home; it is a deliberate recalibration of power that fundamentally changes the nature of a claim, the scope of potential remedies, and the strategic calculus for both plaintiffs and defendants in employment litigation.

The Repeal of the Old Regime

Prior to AB 2499, protections for employees who were victims of crimes were fragmented across two primary Labor Code sections. Labor Code § 230 provided a baseline of protection for all employees, prohibiting retaliation for taking time off to serve on a jury, appear in court as a witness, or obtain a restraining order.11 Labor Code § 230.1 applied only to employers with 25 or more employees and provided unpaid leave for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to seek medical attention, obtain services from a victim-support organization, or engage in safety planning.2 AB 2499 explicitly repeals both of these sections, consolidating and dramatically expanding their protections under the single umbrella of FEHA.2

Shift in Enforcement Authority

This statutory relocation triggers a critical shift in enforcement authority. Under the previous regime, an employee who believed their rights were violated would typically file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), also known as the Labor Commissioner’s Office.1 The DLSE’s process is primarily administrative, often focused on investigating and remedying specific, quantifiable violations like lost wages.

Under AB 2499, enforcement jurisdiction now rests with California’s Civil Rights Department (CRD), the state’s primary civil rights agency tasked with enforcing FEHA.1 The CRD is equipped to investigate complex, systemic issues of discrimination and retaliation. A violation is no longer just an improper denial of leave; it is an “unlawful employment practice”.5 This means an employee’s path to recourse now follows the well-trodden, and for employers, far more perilous, FEHA process: filing a complaint with the CRD, obtaining a “right-to-sue” letter, and initiating a civil lawsuit in superior court. This procedural change alone signals a significant escalation in legal risk, as it moves disputes from a primarily administrative forum to the civil court system, where the full panoply of litigation tools, including extensive discovery and jury trials, comes into play.

The New Landscape of Remedies

The most dramatic consequence of the move to FEHA is the expansion of available remedies. The former Labor Code provisions offered a relatively circumscribed set of remedies, primarily centered on “reinstatement and reimbursement” for lost wages and benefits.2 While impactful for the affected employee, these remedies were generally quantifiable and capped, allowing employers to calculate a relatively predictable financial risk.

FEHA, by contrast, provides a far more potent arsenal of remedies. A prevailing plaintiff in a FEHA action can recover:

  • Back pay and front pay: Compensation for lost earnings, both past and future.
  • General (Emotional Distress) Damages: Compensation for pain, suffering, humiliation, and mental anguish, which are often uncapped and can vastly exceed the economic damages in a case.
  • Punitive Damages: In cases of malice, oppression, or fraud, punitive damages may be awarded to punish the employer and deter future misconduct.
  • Prevailing Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fees: FEHA includes a fee-shifting provision that requires the defendant-employer to pay the successful plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, which can often run into the six or even seven figures.

This new remedial structure transforms the financial risk profile of a mishandled victim leave request. What was once a potential four-figure liability for back pay can now easily become a six-figure exposure when emotional distress and attorney’s fees are factored in. This heightened exposure creates a powerful incentive for the plaintiffs’ bar to pursue these cases with vigor, ensuring that employers will face sophisticated and well-resourced legal challenges for any perceived non-compliance.

Omission of “Reinstatement and Reimbursement”: A Strategic Enhancement, Not a Reduction

Notably, the text of AB 2499 explicitly omits the “reinstatement and reimbursement” language from the old Labor Code sections.2 This should not be misinterpreted as a dilution of employee rights. On the contrary, it is a strategic legislative choice. By removing the specific, limited remedies of the Labor Code, the legislature cleared the way for the application of FEHA’s entire remedial scheme. FEHA’s existing framework already empowers courts to order reinstatement and award back pay as part of a “make-whole” remedy. The omission, therefore, is not a subtraction but a replacement of a limited remedy with a far broader and more powerful one, ensuring that victims of discrimination under this new provision have access to the same comprehensive relief as victims of any other form of unlawful discrimination under FEHA.

III. Redefining the Protected Class: A Deep Dive into “QAV,” “Victim,” and the “Designated Person”

AB 2499 dramatically expands the universe of employees and situations entitled to protection by introducing a new lexicon of broad, and at times ambiguous, definitions. These new terms—”Qualifying Act of Violence,” the expanded “family member,” and the novel “designated person”—require careful deconstruction, as they form the new tripwires for triggering an employer’s duties under the law. Understanding their nuances is the first step in developing effective compliance protocols.

Deconstructing the “Qualifying Act of Violence” (QAV)

The law replaces the former, somewhat disparate, references to “crime or abuse” and “domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking” with the single, expansive term “Qualifying Act of Violence” (QAV).1 A QAV is defined as:

  • Domestic violence;
  • Sexual assault;
  • Stalking; or
  • Any act, conduct, or pattern of conduct that includes:
  • Causing bodily injury or death to another;
  • Brandishing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or other dangerous weapon; or
  • A perceived or actual threat to use force against another to cause physical injury or death.4

The most operationally challenging and legally significant element of this definition is the explicit standard that these acts qualify regardless of whether anyone is arrested for, prosecuted for, or convicted of any crime.3 This provision effectively removes the need for external, objective validation from the legal system. The trigger for protection is the act itself, as reported by the employee, not its official adjudication.

This creates a profound shift in the employer’s role. Previously, an employer could often rely on a police report, court filing, or restraining order as a clear, objective basis for granting leave. Now, the basis for the leave may be the employee’s own attestation. An employee’s signed written statement certifying that the absence is for a protected purpose is considered sufficient certification.23 This places front-line managers and HR professionals in the difficult position of having to assess and respond to sensitive situations without making credibility determinations that could be construed as retaliatory. For example, if an employee reports a “threat to use force” from a partner to justify a leave request, but no police were involved, the employer cannot deny the leave solely on the basis of lacking a police report. Questioning the employee’s account too aggressively or denying the request could form the basis of a FEHA retaliation claim. This necessitates a significant investment in training managers to listen with empathy, document the request, and escalate to HR for a consistent and legally compliant response, rather than attempting to investigate or adjudicate the employee’s personal situation.

The Expanded “Family Member” and the Novel “Designated Person”

AB 2499 also broadens the circle of individuals whose victimization can trigger an employee’s right to leave and accommodations. The definition of “family member” is now aligned with the expansive definition used in the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), covering an employee’s child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner.4

More revolutionary is the introduction of the “designated person.” This is defined as “any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship”.1 This survivor-centric provision acknowledges that crucial support networks often exist outside of traditional familial structures.

From an administrative standpoint, the law provides two key parameters for managing this new category. First, the employee identifies their designated person at the time they request the leave; employers cannot require pre-designation.4 Second, an employer may limit an employee to one designated person per 12-month period.1

While laudable in its goal, this provision creates immediate administrative challenges. HR and leave management systems must be updated to track these ad-hoc designations to ensure the “one per 12-month period” limitation is applied consistently and fairly. Without a robust tracking mechanism, an employer could face difficulties in managing leave requests and could be exposed to claims of inconsistent application of its policy. Therefore, employee handbooks and leave policies must be updated to clearly explain the process for naming a designated person and the associated limitation, ensuring both employees and managers understand the procedural requirements.

IV. The New Contours of Protected Leave: Entitlements, Duration, and Interplay with Existing Laws

AB 2499 creates a multi-layered system of leave entitlements that varies based on employer size, the identity of the victim, and the purpose of the leave. Navigating these new contours requires a precise understanding of who is entitled to what, for how long, and how these new protections interact with the existing web of state and federal leave laws.

Mapping the Expanded Reasons for Leave

The law significantly broadens the permissible reasons for taking protected time off. While all employers must allow an employee who is a victim to take time off to obtain relief such as a restraining order, employers with 25 or more employees are subject to a much more extensive list of protected activities. For these larger employers, an employee may take leave when they or a covered family member is a victim of a QAV for purposes including, but not limited to:

  • Seeking or obtaining medical attention for injuries.6
  • Obtaining services from a domestic violence shelter, rape crisis center, or other victim services organization.6
  • Obtaining psychological counseling or mental health services.24
  • Participating in safety planning to increase safety from future violence, which explicitly includes temporary or permanent relocation and enrolling children in a new school or childcare program.3
  • Preparing for or participating in any civil, administrative, or criminal legal proceeding related to the QAV.22

Navigating Leave Limits and Employer Thresholds

The duration of available leave is subject to specific caps that depend on the circumstances. It is critical for leave administrators to distinguish between these scenarios:

  • Employee as Victim or Family Member Deceased: If the employee is the victim of a QAV, or if the employee’s family member is deceased as a direct result of a QAV, the employee is entitled to a total of 12 weeks of leave.3
  • Assisting a Living Family Member: If the employee is taking leave to assist a family member who is a victim of a non-fatal QAV, the employer may limit the leave to a total of 10 days.3
  • Relocation Sub-Limit: Within that 10-day allotment, there is a further sub-limit of 5 days for the specific purposes of assisting a family member with relocation or enrolling a child in a new school or childcare program.3

The following table provides a clear, at-a-glance summary of the law’s primary obligations based on employer size, highlighting that even the smallest employers are subject to some of the law’s most significant new duties.

Table 1: AB 2499 Protections: A Comparative Breakdown by Employer Size

FeatureEmployers (1+ Employees)Employers (25+ Employees)
Leave for Employee as Victim (to obtain court relief)RequiredRequired
Leave for Expanded Reasons (medical, safety planning, etc.)Not RequiredRequired
Leave to Assist Family Member VictimNot RequiredRequired
Reasonable Accommodation for Employee VictimRequiredRequired
Reasonable Accommodation for Employee’s Family Member VictimRequiredRequired
Multi-Trigger Notice RequirementRequiredRequired

The Convergence of Leave Laws

A critical aspect of administering leave under AB 2499 is understanding its mandatory interaction with other leave entitlements.

  • FMLA/CFRA Concurrency: The statute is unequivocal: if the reason for an employee’s absence under AB 2499 would also qualify for leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), the leaves must run concurrently.6 For example, if an employee takes time off to care for a spouse recovering from injuries caused by a QAV, this would likely qualify as caring for a family member with a “serious health condition” under FMLA/CFRA. The employer must designate the leave as both AB 2499 leave and FMLA/CFRA leave, and the time off will count against the employee’s entitlement under all applicable laws simultaneously. This requires precise communication and documentation from leave administrators.
  • Use of Paid Time: AB 2499 does not create a new paid leave entitlement. However, it explicitly grants employees the right to use any accrued, available paid time off—including paid sick leave, vacation time, or other personal leave—for any absence protected by the law.7 Employers cannot require employees to use unpaid leave if they have accrued paid time available and wish to use it.

V. Reasonable Accommodations: A Dramatically Expanded Duty of Care

Perhaps the most operationally challenging and legally perilous expansion under AB 2499 is the broadened duty to provide reasonable accommodations. This duty now extends into new territory, creating a direct link between an employee’s off-site personal safety concerns and the employer’s legal obligations within the workplace.

Expansion of Eligibility

The cornerstone of this change is the expansion of accommodation eligibility. Under prior law, the duty was owed to an employee who was a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.2 AB 2499 dramatically broadens this in two ways. First, it applies to victims of any QAV. Second, and most significantly, the duty to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee’s safety at work now extends to situations where the employee’s family member (or designated person) is the victim of a QAV.2 This critical expansion applies to all employers in California, regardless of size.4

This creates a novel legal nexus where a threat originating entirely outside the workplace—directed at a non-employee—triggers a legal duty for the employer to take affirmative steps to mitigate potential risks at the workplace. For instance, if an employee discloses that their child is being threatened by an ex-partner, the employer is now on notice and has a duty to engage with the employee to discuss potential safety accommodations at work, such as changing the employee’s workstation or providing information on how to contact security. Failure to do so could result in a FEHA claim for failure to accommodate. If an incident subsequently occurs at the workplace, the employer’s potential liability could extend beyond FEHA to include claims of negligence.

The Interactive Process in a New Context

As with other accommodation requirements under FEHA, employers must engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process to determine an effective reasonable accommodation. However, AB 2499 adds a unique and critical directive: in this process, the employer must consider any “exigent circumstance or danger facing the employee or their family member”.6 This statutory language requires a heightened level of sensitivity and urgency. The process cannot be a bureaucratic, check-the-box exercise. It must be a dynamic and responsive dialogue that prioritizes the immediate safety concerns communicated by the employee.

Examples of potential accommodations that may need to be considered include, but are not limited to, a transfer to a different position or location, a modified work schedule, a change to the employee’s work telephone number or email address, installation of locks or other security measures, or assistance in documenting the violence if it spills into the workplace.7

The Undue Hardship Defense

An employer is not required to provide an accommodation that would impose an “undue hardship” on its operations. AB 2499 incorporates FEHA’s existing definition of undue hardship but also adds a crucial clarification: an undue hardship includes any action that would violate the employer’s duty under Cal/OSHA regulations (specifically, Labor Code § 6400) to furnish and maintain a safe and healthful place of employment for all employees.6

This provision acknowledges the potential for conflicting duties. An employer’s obligation to accommodate one employee’s safety cannot come at the expense of the safety of the entire workforce. For example, an employee might request that a public-facing entrance be permanently locked as an accommodation. While this might enhance that employee’s safety, it could create a fire hazard or violate building codes, thereby endangering other employees and constituting an undue hardship. In such a scenario, the employer must document why the requested accommodation creates an undue hardship and work collaboratively with the employee through the interactive process to identify an alternative accommodation that is effective and does not compromise overall workplace safety.

VI. The Compliance Gauntlet: A Blueprint for Handbooks, Notices, and Training

With the law’s expanded scope and its integration into FEHA, proactive and meticulous compliance is the only effective risk mitigation strategy. Employers must focus their efforts on three pillars: documenting clear policies, mastering the new notification requirements, and implementing targeted training for all levels of management.

Mastering the Four-Trigger Notice Requirement

AB 2499 imposes a stringent and multi-faceted notice requirement on all employers. The CRD has published an official model notice titled “Survivors of Violence and Family Members of Victims Right to Leave and Accommodations,” and employers must provide this written notice to employees at four specific junctures:

  1. Upon Hire: To all new employees as part of their onboarding materials.
  2. Annually: To all current employees.
  3. Upon Request: To any employee who requests it at any time.
  4. Upon Disclosure: Any time an employee informs the employer that they or a family member is a victim of a QAV.16

While employers may create their own notice, it must be “substantially similar in content and clarity” to the CRD’s model, a standard that invites legal challenges.25 The most prudent course is to use the official CRD notice.

The fourth trigger—”any time an employee informs an employer”—presents the most significant compliance trap. This is not limited to a formal request for leave made to HR. An informal, offhand comment made to a direct supervisor, such as, “I’m having a rough day, my ex won’t stop calling and threatening me,” could legally constitute a disclosure. This would trigger the employer’s legal obligation to provide the formal written notice. A manager who is not trained to recognize this disclosure and escalate it appropriately creates an immediate compliance failure. If that employee is later subject to any adverse employment action, the failure to provide the required notice could be used as powerful evidence of retaliatory animus, suggesting the employer disregarded the employee’s protected status.

Drafting and Revising the Employee Handbook

Simply adding a sentence to an existing leave policy is insufficient. To ensure clarity and demonstrate a commitment to compliance, employers should revise their employee handbooks to include a new, stand-alone policy dedicated to these protections.32 This policy should be clearly titled, for example, “Leave and Accommodations for Survivors of Violence and Their Family Members.”

The policy must be comprehensive and meticulously drafted to include:

  • Scope and Definitions: Clearly state the broad definitions of “Qualifying Act of Violence,” “victim,” “family member,” and “designated person.”
  • Leave Entitlements: Detail the specific leave entitlements, making clear distinctions for employers with 25 or more employees regarding the expanded reasons for leave and coverage for family members. The policy should also specify the duration limits (12 weeks, 10 days, 5 days).
  • Requesting Leave and Certification: Outline the process for requesting leave, including the expectation of reasonable advance notice when feasible. Explain the types of certification that may be required for an unscheduled absence, while emphasizing that all information and documentation provided will be kept confidential.
  • Reasonable Accommodations: Explicitly state the right to reasonable accommodations for employees who are victims or have family members who are victims. Describe the interactive process and provide examples of potential accommodations.
  • Anti-Retaliation and Confidentiality: Include a strong, unequivocal statement prohibiting any form of discrimination or retaliation against an employee for exercising their rights under the policy. Reaffirm the employer’s commitment to maintaining the confidentiality of all related matters to the extent possible.

Training as a Litigation Shield

A well-drafted policy is only effective if it is understood and implemented correctly. Training is not merely a best practice; it is an essential component of a defensible compliance strategy. The training should be tailored to two distinct audiences:

  • For HR Professionals and Leave Administrators: This training must be deep and technical. It should cover the legal nuances of the new definitions, the precise administration of leave entitlements, the critical importance of tracking FMLA/CFRA concurrency, the proper handling and storage of confidential certification documents, and best practices for documenting every step of the interactive process for accommodation requests.20
  • For Front-Line Managers and Supervisors: This training should focus on practical issue-spotting and proper response protocols. Managers are the employer’s first line of defense. They must be trained to:
  • Recognize a Disclosure: Understand that even informal comments about personal safety or violence can trigger legal duties.
  • Respond with Empathy, Not Judgment: Listen to the employee without interrogating them or offering unsolicited advice.
  • Maintain Confidentiality: Know that this information is highly sensitive and must not be shared with colleagues.
  • Escalate Immediately: Understand that their primary role is to immediately and confidentially report the disclosure to HR, who will then take the lead on providing the official notice and engaging in any necessary follow-up processes.20

VII. Conclusion: Navigating the New Landscape of Employer Liability Under AB 2499

Assembly Bill 2499 is a watershed moment in California employment law. It fundamentally elevates the status of victim protections, embedding them within the powerful civil rights framework of FEHA and creating a new landscape of employer duties and liabilities. The era of viewing victim-related leave as a secondary, administrative compliance task is definitively over. Employers must now approach these issues with the same level of seriousness, procedural rigor, and legal oversight as they do claims of harassment, discrimination, and disability accommodation.

The primary vectors of risk are clear and significant. The jurisdictional shift to FEHA unleashes the potential for high-stakes litigation, including claims for emotional distress, punitive damages, and substantial attorney’s fees. The law’s broad and sometimes ambiguous definitions of “Qualifying Act of Violence” and “designated person” expand the scope of coverage in ways that will challenge day-to-day administration. The dramatically expanded duty to provide reasonable accommodations—particularly when an employee’s family member is the victim—creates a novel and complex nexus between an employee’s life outside of work and the employer’s legal obligations within it. Finally, the multi-trigger notice requirement establishes a compliance trap that is easy for untrained managers to fall into, creating instant liability.

In this new environment, a reactive posture is untenable. A simple update to a handbook policy, without more, will be insufficient to mitigate the risks. The only defensible strategy is a holistic and proactive one. Guided by legal counsel, employers must undertake a comprehensive review and revision of their policies, implement robust and recurring training programs for both HR personnel and front-line managers, and foster a workplace culture that is prepared to respond to these sensitive situations with empathy, confidentiality, and unwavering legal compliance. By integrating these new requirements into the core of their leave administration, risk management, and human resources frameworks, employers can begin to navigate the challenging but essential new dimensions of leave and protection mandated by AB 2499.

Works cited

  1. AB 2499 (Schiavo) – Senate Judiciary Committee, accessed October 19, 2025, https://sjud.senate.ca.gov/system/files/2024-06/ab-2499-schiavo-sjud-analysis.pdf
  2. Bill Text: CA AB2499 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session | Introduced – LegiScan, accessed October 19, 2025, https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2499/id/2927229
  3. California Civil Rights Department Releases FAQs and Model Notice Regarding Survivors of Violence and Family Members of Victims Rights Law (AB 2499) | Employment Law Spotlight, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.employmentlawspotlight.com/blogs/california-civil-rights-department-releases-faqs-and-model-notice-regarding-survivors-of-violence-and-family-members-of-victims-rights-law-ab-2499/
  4. Victims’ Leave 2025 Updates Created New Obligations, Expanded Others – HRWatchdog, accessed October 19, 2025, https://hrwatchdog.calchamber.com/2025/07/victims-leave-2025-updates-created-new-obligations-expanded-others/
  5. New Law Reframes Victim-of-Violence Leave in California: 8 Key Takeaways for Employers, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/new-law-reframes-victim-of-violence-leave-in-california-8-key-takeaways-for-employers.html
  6. California’s Victims of Violence Leave AB2499 – Contra Costa County, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/73593/CA-Victims-of-Domestic-Violence-Sexual-Assault-or-Stalking-Fact-Sheet-PDF?bidId=
  7. It’s That Time Again: New California Workplace Laws for 2025 | Inside Jobs, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.insidejobsblog.com/2024/11/19/its-that-time-again-new-california-workplace-laws-for-2025/
  8. AB 2499 – Unlawful Discrimination and Paid Sick Leave: Victims of …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/ab-2499-unlawful-discrimination-and-paid-sick-leave-victims-of-violence/
  9. 2025 California Labor & Employment Updates – What You Need to Know Part 2, accessed October 19, 2025, https://bbklaw.com/resources/la-03042025-california-labor-employment-updates-what-you-need-to-know-part-2
  10. Assembly Bill 2499: California Amends Jury, Court, and Victim Time Off Provisions, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.californiaworkplacelawblog.com/2024/09/articles/disability-and-leave/assembly-bill-2499-california-amends-jury-court-and-victim-time-off-provisions/
  11. California Labor Code § 230 (2023) :: 2023 California Code :: U.S. …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2023/code-lab/division-2/part-1/chapter-1/article-1/section-230/
  12. Victims of Domestic Violence Leave Notice – CA.gov, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/victims_of_domestic_violence_leave_notice.pdf
  13. Bill Text: CA AB2499 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session | Amended …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2499/id/3017637
  14. California Legislative Year-End Review: Preparing Employers for 2025 (US), accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.employmentlawworldview.com/california-legislative-year-end-review-preparing-employers-for-2025-us/
  15. Key Changes to California Employment Laws in 2025 – Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.rjo.com/publications/key-changes-to-california-employment-laws-in-2025/
  16. Bill Text: CA AB2499 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session | Amended …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2499/id/2983358
  17. ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2499 – Amazon S3, accessed October 19, 2025, https://s3.amazonaws.com/fn-document-service/file-by-sha384/b1301e277491a4abc6cc55e22225c4cc5fed2e4d60111eda8ca881b878c55a78756ead37b483e21c69db2c8dda6cd5ff
  18. California Expands Protections and Paid Sick Leave Uses for Crime Victims – Ogletree, accessed October 19, 2025, https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/california-expands-protections-and-paid-sick-leave-uses-for-crime-victims/
  19. New Protections for Victims of Violence Under AB 2499: What Employers Need to Know, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.wga.com/news/new-protections-for-victims-of-violence-under-ab-2499-what-employers-need-to-know/
  20. 2025 California Employment Law Changes Every Employer Needs to Know, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.fbm.com/publications/2025-california-employment-law-changes-every-employer-needs-to-know/
  21. New Legal Obligations for Construction Employers Supporting Victims of Violence – Dunn DeSantis Walt & Kendrick, LLP %, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.ddwklaw.com/2025/05/27/new-legal-obligations-for-construction-employers-supporting-victims-of-violence/
  22. Reminder: New Notice Required Regarding Expansion of …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/reminder-new-notice-required-regarding-9155903/
  23. California Civil Rights Department Publishes Survivors of Violence’s Right to Leave & Accommodation Notice and FAQ | California Workplace Law Blog, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.californiaworkplacelawblog.com/2025/07/articles/disability-and-leave/california-civil-rights-department-publishes-survivors-of-violences-right-to-leave-accommodation-notice-and-faq/
  24. 2025 Compliance Checklist: Distributing the CRD’s New Model Notice Under AB 2499, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.cdflaborlaw.com/blog/2025-compliance-checklist-distributing-the-crds-new-model-notice-under-ab-2499
  25. California Expands Protections for Employees Who Are Victims of Crime or Family Members of Victims: What Employers Need to Know About AB 2499 | Labor and Employment Law Insights, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.laborandemploymentlawinsights.com/2025/07/california-expands-protections-for-employees-who-are-victims-of-crime-or-family-members-of-victims-what-employers-need-to-know-about-ab-2499/
  26. Civil Rights Department Shares New Resources to Help Protect …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/2025/07/07/civil-rights-department-shares-new-resources-to-help-protect-access-to-time-off-for-californians-impacted-by-violence/
  27. California Expands Paid Sick Leave Uses for Crime Victims and Agricultural Employees, and Changes Unpaid Leave Standards for Victims | Littler, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/california-expands-paid-sick-leave-uses-crime-victims-and-agricultural-employees
  28. Legislative Update: Legislature Hikes the Ball For Signing Kickoff, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.calpeculiarities.com/2024/09/12/legislative-update-legislature-hikes-the-ball-for-signing-kickoff/
  29. 2025 New Laws Series, Part 7: Three New Bills Revise California’s Paid Leave Laws: What Employers Should Know, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.csda.net/blogs/vanessa-gonzales/2024/12/03/2025-new-laws-series-part-7-three-new-bills-revise
  30. California CRD Publishes Notice and FAQs on Expanded Rights for Survivors and Family Members – Vensure, accessed October 19, 2025, https://vensure.com/employment-law-updates/california/california-crd-publishes-notice-and-faqs-on-expanded-rights-for-survivors-and-family-members/
  31. Updates on California Labor Laws 2025 – Discrimination Retaliation for Victims of Violence, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.stevelopezlaw.com/updates-on-california-labor-laws-2025-discrimination-retaliation-for-victims-of-violence
  32. CEA’s Employee Handbook template contains all of the required policies an employer must have to comply with California and Federal laws. Our easy, do-it-yourself handbook is only available as a download. – Member Portal, accessed October 19, 2025, https://cea.users.membersuite.com/shop/store/d9a3840a-00ce-c6b6-68fe-0b47f3037a01/detail
  33. Employee Handbooks: A Workplace Essential – HRCalifornia – California Chamber of Commerce, accessed October 19, 2025, https://hrcalifornia.calchamber.com/-/media/HRCalifornia/cases-news/employee-handbooks-a-workplace-essential.ashx
  34. New Notice Requirement for California Employers: Surviving Violent Crimes, accessed October 19, 2025, https://calemploymentlawupdate.proskauer.com/2025/07/new-notice-requirement-for-california-employers-surviving-violent-crimes/
  35. Model Crime Victims Notice (AB 2499) Now Available – California Employers Association, accessed October 19, 2025, https://employers.org/2025/07/01/model-crime-victims-notice/
  36. AB 2499 Victim Leave Notice Has Been Released – Keenan, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.keenan.com/knowledge-center/news-and-insights/blogs/ab-2499-victim-leave-notice-has-been-released/
  37. AB 2499 brings new notice duties for California employers – Norton Rose Fulbright, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-us/knowledge/publications/8251983b/ab-2499-brings-new-notice-duties-for-california-employers
  38. Witness and Victims of Crime Leave Policy (CA) | Practical Law – Westlaw, accessed October 19, 2025, https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/Iee624538aafa11e498db8b09b4f043e0/Witness-and-Victims-of-Crime-Leave-Policy-CA?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
  39. California Employer 2025 Checklist: Top 10 Changes to Know this …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.theemployerreport.com/2025/01/staying-alive-in-2025-the-top-10-changes-california-employers-need-to-know-now/