EEOC & NLRB Guidance Updates: Takeaways for California Employers

With the current presidential administration reshaping federal agency priorities, employers are beginning to see changes in how agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) approach workplace guidance and enforcement. Updates in agency guidance provide key insights into the federal government’s interpretation of employment laws. However, California employers should remember that State law often still sets higher compliance standards and provides greater employee protections.

Here are three key federal developments worth watching.

1. EEOC Rescinds 2024 Harassment Guidance

In January 2026, the EEOC voted to rescind its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. The agency emphasized that this does not change the underlying anti-harassment laws, such as Title VII. However, the previous guidance was still helpful in understanding the EEOC’s positions and interpretations of civil rights laws. The Guidance provided illustrative examples of harassment in more modern contexts (e.g., digital harassment), and roadmaps to developing anti-harassment programs and conducting workplace investigations.

California Takeaway:
California employers should not view this as a reason to loosen workplace conduct expectations. Even on a federal level, civil rights laws remain unchanged, and California’s harassment prevention rules under its Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provide broader employee protections.

And, although employers can no longer turn to the EEOC’s guidance for illustrative examples on harassment, California’s Civil Rights Department has its own Harassment Prevention Guide. California employers should follow in developing their harassment prevention programs and conducting workplace investigations.

2. EEOC/OPM Issues New Telework Guidance for Federal Agencies

In February 2026, the EEOC and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) released FAQs addressing telework (i.e., remote work) as a reasonable accommodation for federal employees with disabilities in the context of return-to-office mandates. While the guidance is directed at federal agencies only, it offers useful insight for private employers navigating remote-work accommodation requests.

Key points from the guidance:

• • If an employer provided remote-work arrangements during the pandemic, this does not automatically mean remote work is a required accommodation.
  • Employers may reassess previously granted remote-work accommodations if circumstances materially change, “such as a change in the employee’s condition, a change in job requirements, a change in operational needs, a change in law, etc.”
  • An employee cannot simply claim (without sufficient evidence) that an in-office accommodation will be ineffective. An employer may insist that the employee report to the office and try out an in-office accommodation first.
  • While accommodations are not required based on personal preferences, a remote-work accommodation for individuals with disabilities/medical conditions may be required when it’s effective in helping the employee perform their essential job functions.
  • The interactive process must still be individualized and evidence-based. Employers should not take a “blanket” approach and rescind or deny remote-work accommodations based on a general “100% onsite” policy for staff.

California takeaway:
Private employers can take some comfort that remote-work accommodations are not “automatic.” However, under both federal and California law, blanket return-to-office decisions without individualized review can create significant risk. CEA members may refer to our Reasonable Accommodation Toolkit for additional tips.

3. NLRB Changes Still Matter, Even for Non-Union Employers

Many employers assume the NLRB only matters if they have a unionized workforce, but this is not correct. The federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), enforced by the NLRB, protects employees in both union and non-union settings when they act together and engage in “concerted protected activity.” Examples include discussing with each other wages, benefits, and working conditions, and engaging in other advocacy efforts.

Last year, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel rescinded several prior memoranda and has now taken more employer-friendly positions on issues such as:

• • severance agreements,
  • electronic monitoring,
  • joint-employer relationships,
  • non-compete and “stay-or-pay” provisions, and
  • certain organizing-related guidance.

California takeaway:
California still has more restrictive employee protections in many of these areas, such as employee privacy rights, joint-employer interpretations, and general prohibitions on non-compete agreements and “stay or pay” contracts. California employers should ensure employee handbook policies cover current legal requirements and best practices.

Bottom Line for California Employers

While federal agencies may be recalibrating guidance based on the presidential administration’s priorities, employers should not assume this automatically changes underlying federal and California employment laws.

Best practices include staying grounded in compliance fundamentals, such as maintaining strong anti-harassment programs and ensuring handbook policies are up-to-date.

Reach out to CEA for additional support and guidance at 800-399-5331 or email us at CEAinfo@employers.org.