SB 513: Training Records & California Personnel Files

SB 513: Training Records & California Personnel Files — Medina McKelvey × Cal Comply Employer Brief (June 11, 2026)
Speakers: Angela Rho (Partner, Advice & Counsel, Medina McKelvey), Jeff Russell (CEO, Cal Comply)
Transcript prepared from the webinar script.

[Angela Rho]
Hi there, and welcome. My name is Angela Rho, and I am a partner in the Advice and Counsel Practice Group at Medina McKelvey. I'd like to speak to you today about a relatively new law, SB 513, that expands employees' rights by requiring employers to maintain and provide copies of education and training records as part of their personnel file.

Let's start with a quick scenario. Imagine you receive a request from a former employee for their personnel file under the California Labor Code. You've handled these before, so you know Labor Code section 1198.5 gives you 30 days from receipt of the request to provide a copy of the file to the former employee. So you send the file on time, and everything seems fine.

But then the employee comes back, frustrated. There is no record of the skills they acquired through on-the-job training while employed by your company, and this failure means the former employee has been unable to obtain employment because they couldn't prove their job-related skills and competencies.

Now, what felt routine suddenly becomes a risk. Under section 1198.5, failure to produce a complete personnel file can expose you to a $750 statutory penalty, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. And importantly, that obligation isn't just about timing — it's about completeness. So even if you responded within 30 days, if key records are missing, you may still have exposure. That's the shift we're seeing. This is no longer just an administrative exercise; it's a documentation and defensibility issue.

That brings us to SB 513, also known as the "WORKER Act," which took effect on January 1, 2026. From a legal standpoint, this new law builds on an existing framework in California that increasingly favors employee access to records and transparency in employment practices.

Any time there's a new law, I like to look to the legislative history and intent to understand the objectives. Legislative intent is important here. This new law was sponsored by the United Steelworkers and is designed to promote employee mobility by helping workers — particularly those without college degrees or those working in high-risk industries such as oil refining — to verify and demonstrate their skills, training, and certifications for future employment.

To accomplish this goal, SB 513 specifically amended Labor Code section 1198.5 to expand the scope of documents that must be produced upon an employee's request, now requiring employers to include detailed education and training records in employees' personnel files in addition to traditional HR documents such as hiring materials, performance documentation, attendance records, and policy acknowledgments.

Practically speaking, the new law now requires that training records include standardized details such as who conducted the training, when it occurred, how long it lasted, what competencies were covered, and whether certifications were earned. In effect, the statute is turning training documentation into something closer to a legally significant employment record — a "skills portfolio," of sorts, that follows the employee.

One key limitation to keep in mind: SB 513 does not impose an affirmative duty to create new training programs. The obligation is simply to maintain and produce records of training that exists or that has occurred, but those records must meet specific documentation standards.

So you may be wondering, how does this play out in practice? At a high level, training falls into two categories: legally required training, and recommended or voluntary training.

In the first bucket is legally required training, which includes things like harassment prevention under Government Code section 12950.1, Cal/OSHA safety training or WVPP training, and other industry-specific mandates. The second bucket is recommended or voluntary training, and it could include leadership training, compliance refreshers, and internal policy training.

Historically, employers have been more disciplined about documenting required training because those obligations already carry compliance risk. But SB 513 expands the lens. If training is tracked, relied upon, or tied to employment decisions, it increasingly looks like it belongs in the personnel file, regardless of whether it was legally required. And this is where exposure starts to widen.

For example, certifications present a nuanced issue. If you require a license or certification for hiring, promotion, or compensation, that record likely falls within the scope of this new law, even if the certification itself is not legally required. So that can include professional licenses such as RNs or a contractor's license, as well as technical certifications like a commercial driver's license or food handler card, and even internal designations like "qualified operator" or proprietary system certifications.

A useful rule of thumb here is: if the absence of a certification would affect the employee's ability to perform the job or remain employed, it should be documented and retained in a defensible way.

There are also gray areas. For instance, toolbox or tailgate safety meetings in industries like construction are not explicitly addressed in the statute. But because Cal/OSHA has historically emphasized documentation as evidence of compliance, failing to document those meetings could create downstream risk.

When it comes to what must be documented, the statute now effectively requires a baseline set of information: employee name; name of the training provider; date and duration of the training; core competencies of the training, including skills in equipment or software; and any resulting certification or qualification. Many employers are also adding the training method — for example, in person or online — and content versioning to support compliance defenses, particularly where training requirements may evolve over time.

The practical takeaway: if you require it, track it, or rely on it for employment decisions, assume it is within the scope of this new law. And one of the biggest risks we're seeing is not that employers lack training — it's that the documentation of the training is fragmented, inconsistent, or incomplete. That gap between reality and what can be produced is where liability arises.

That being said, what does compliance look like under this framework? We want to move from risk to response, and from occurrence to proof. As you can see, the issue is no longer whether training occurred, but whether the employer can prove that an employee was trained by producing reliable, contemporaneous evidence.

Common failure points tend to be operational in nature. I've seen issues with decentralized recordkeeping — HR, compliance, and operations or supervisors all holding pieces — inconsistent documentation practices, reliance on informal records like sign-in sheets that lack verification, or overdependence on third-party systems without internal retention.

From a risk perspective, the new law provides a relatively modest statutory penalty, but the real exposure comes from litigation leverage. Missing or incomplete records can undermine defenses in wrongful termination claims, wage and hour disputes, and discrimination or harassment cases.

Retention is another key consideration. While the statute itself governs access and production, retention practices should align with applicable statutes of limitation — typically three to four years, but potentially longer depending on the claim and industry regulations, such as OSHA or Cal/OSHA requirements. A conservative approach is to retain records for the duration of employment plus the applicable statutory tail.

Operationally, defensible compliance generally means centralizing records, standardizing documentation protocols, conducting periodic audits, and clearly assigning responsibility for maintaining records. Many employers are also using platforms such as Cal Comply to train, test, and certify their workforce in wage and hour rules so they can prove compliance and reduce lawsuit risk.

Cal Comply also provides an infrastructure, not a legal solution, and functions like a "compliance record capture system" by tracking who was trained, what they were trained on, by whom, and when. It also preserves defensible records. Think of Cal Comply as a security camera system for compliance — it creates a reliable, timestamped record so employers don't have to reconstruct events later. So instead of scrambling to piece things together, you can just pull the record. It's clean, organized, and ready to go.

Conveniently, I have Jeff Russell, the CEO of Cal Comply, here to give us a more comprehensive overview of Cal Comply.

[Jeff Russell]
Thanks, Angela. What Angela just covered is exactly why we built Cal Comply.

California employers are operating in an environment where compliance is no longer just about having good policies. It is about being able to prove compliance with defensible, time-stamped records that you can produce quickly when requested. That is even more important under SB 513, because employers are now expected to maintain detailed education and training records that may become part of an employee's personnel file. And as Angela explained, the risk is not just whether training happened — it is whether you can prove it happened with reliable documentation.

That is where Cal Comply helps. At Cal Comply, we help California employers train, certify, document, and track compliance across their workforce. We believe employers should approach wage and hour compliance the same way they approach workplace safety — with training, accountability, monitoring, and documentation.

Our platform was built by employment litigators who have defended and resolved hundreds of California wage and hour cases. We saw the same problem over and over again: good employers trying to do the right thing, but lacking the records and systems needed to prove compliance when challenged. And that would hurt them in court. So we built a system designed to help employers create defensible compliance records before a lawsuit or personnel file request ever happens.

With Cal Comply, employers can assign training to employees and managers, deliver courses online through any device, test employees on the material, require signed certifications, and automatically store those records in one centralized system. The platform tracks who completed the training, what they were trained on, when they completed it, and maintains those records in an organized, audit-ready format. That aligns very closely with the type of documentation SB 513 now emphasizes.

We also help employers digitize and preserve important compliance records like meal period waivers and signed acknowledgments, eliminating paper processes that often become fragmented or lost over time.

One of the biggest operational problems employers face is decentralized recordkeeping. HR has some records, supervisors have others, and third-party vendors may have another piece of the puzzle. Then a request comes in, and the company is scrambling to reconstruct what happened months or years later. Cal Comply helps solve that problem by centralizing compliance documentation into a single system that is easy to manage, easy to search, and easy to produce if needed.

And under New PAGA, that documentation matters more than ever. Employers who can show good-faith compliance efforts through training, certifications, acknowledgments, and documented processes may be in a stronger position to reduce penalties and defend claims.

At the end of the day, Cal Comply is not a substitute for legal advice. It is compliance infrastructure. It helps employers operationalize compliance in a way that is practical, scalable, and defensible. Because in California, the question isn't, "Did you train your workforce?" The question is, "Can you prove it?" And that is exactly what Cal Comply was built to help employers do.

So with that, Angela, I'll kick it back over to you. As we close this out, what are some practical steps employers can take to ensure they stay compliant with SB 513?

[Angela Rho]
First, I'd start with an internal risk assessment or review. Identify where your training records currently live, which trainings you offer that are tied to job qualifications or compliance obligations, and whether you can produce a complete file upon request within the statutory 30-day window.

Next, I'd close obvious gaps. That may involve standardizing documentation requirements, consolidating or integrating systems, or ensuring that any third-party vendors can provide records that meet the new law's level of detail.

Then, I'd implement defensible processes. Develop written recordkeeping policies aligned with the new law, train HR and management on documentation expectations, and conduct periodic audits to test compliance.

And finally, adopt a risk mitigation mindset. Training records should be treated as legal documents, not as administrative paperweights. You should assume they will be requested — either by the employee or in litigation — and maintain them accordingly.

I'll leave you with this: In California, compliance is no longer just about doing the right thing. It's about being able to prove it on demand with records that are complete, accurate, and defensible. That's why Cal Comply can be a great compliance partner for your organization.

Thank you for your time today. And as always, please contact your favorite Medina McKelvey attorney or Senior HR Advisor for assistance with your employment-law-related questions. We're here to turn legal uncertainty into legal stability. See you next time.