AB 2563 revises the definitions portion of California’s anti-discrimination law to broaden what counts as prohibited discrimination and to clarify available remedies and employer obligations. The bill explicitly adds pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, gender identity, and gender expression to the statutory definition of “sex,” incorporates reproductive health decisionmaking as a protected concept, and declares that race protections include protective hairstyles such as braids, locs, and twists.
It also enumerates what counts as affirmative or prospective relief and spells out employer and employee thresholds.
Why this matters: employers, HR teams, and legal counsel will need to update policies, job descriptions, hiring practices, accessibility and accommodation procedures, and training to reflect the expanded definitions. The bill makes several doctrinal clarifications — for example, how genetic information is defined and how ADA definitions interact — that will affect intake, investigations, and litigation strategy for both plaintiffs and defendants.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill rewrites the definitional section governing unlawful employment practices: it expands the statutory meaning of “sex,” defines reproductive health decisionmaking, adds protective hairstyles to the race definition, enumerates forms of affirmative relief, and lists factors for assessing undue hardship on reasonable accommodations.
Who It Affects
Employees and applicants who are pregnant, breastfeeding, transgender, gender nonconforming, or who wear protective hairstyles; immigrant workers holding driver’s licenses issued under Vehicle Code §12801.9; employers with five or more employees; HR, compliance, and defense counsel; and agencies that handle discrimination claims.
Why It Matters
The changes broaden protected traits and sharpen remedies and accommodation tests, increasing employers’ compliance obligations and the potential scope of claims while signaling expanded workplace protections for reproductive and gender-related choices and racially specific hairstyles.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2563 largely operates through definitional change: it revises the statute’s dictionary so that everyday workplace choices and identities are explicitly covered. The bill makes clear that “sex” includes medical conditions tied to pregnancy and childbirth, breastfeeding, and gender (both identity and expression).
It also says that reproductive health decisionmaking — decisions to use or access drugs, devices, products, or services for reproductive health — is part of the statutory fabric, which brings choices around contraception, abortion, and other reproductive care explicitly within anti-discrimination protections.
Beyond sex, the bill calls out race-associated traits by name: the phrase “race” now expressly covers traits such as hair texture and protective hairstyles, and the bill lists braids, locs, and twists as examples. For national origin, the text clarifies that discriminating against someone for possessing a driver’s license issued under Vehicle Code §12801.9 is a form of national-origin discrimination — a point that will affect employers and agencies that screen for licenses.
The statute also defines “genetic information” and explicitly excludes sex and age from that definition, which limits how genetic data is categorized in investigations or claims.The bill is also practical about remedies and process. It enumerates “affirmative relief” — reinstatement, backpay, posting notices, training, expunging records, and more — so courts and agencies have a menu of corrective tools.
On accommodations, the law lists examples of “reasonable accommodation” and then specifies five factors to evaluate “undue hardship” (nature and cost of accommodation, facility and entity financial resources, overall business size, workforce composition, and geographic separateness). That creates a fact-specific test employers must document when denying accommodations.Finally, AB 2563 includes two cross-cutting clarifications that matter for litigation and enforcement.
First, it says the federal ADA’s broader definition of disability, if any, is incorporated and will prevail where it provides wider coverage. Second, the bill expressly declares that a “group or class complaint” alleging a pattern or practice is part of the statute — language intended to clarify that pattern-or-practice claims are available under the statute and may influence agency intake and class litigation strategies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines “employer” to include any person who regularly employs five or more persons, with certain exclusions (e.g.
religious associations or corporations not organized for private profit).
“Sex” expressly includes pregnancy and related medical conditions, childbirth, breastfeeding and related conditions, plus gender — defined to include gender identity and gender expression.
The statute adds that “race” covers traits associated with race, and defines “protective hairstyles” to include braids, locs, and twists.
The text lists specific forms of affirmative (prospective) relief — from reinstatement and backpay to expunging records, posting notices, and mandatory training — giving agencies and courts an explicit corrective toolbox.
When assessing “undue hardship” for accommodations, the bill requires analysis of five factors (nature/cost, facility resources and employee count, overall entity resources and size, operations/workforce composition, and geographic separateness).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Affirmative relief — enumerated remedies
This subdivision supplies a nonexhaustive list of what counts as “affirmative” or “prospective” relief: reinstatement, backpay, reimbursements, hiring or transfers, tenure or promotions, cease-and-desist orders, required postings and training, testing, expunging records, and reporting. Practically, that gives enforcement agencies and courts clear authority to order non-monetary corrective steps in addition to damages, and it signals that remedies aimed at changing workplace practices (training, posting, testing) are intended remedies under the statute.
Who is an employer — five-employee threshold and exclusions
The bill confirms the five-or-more-employee threshold for employer coverage and specifies that the state and its political subdivisions count. It also excludes religious associations or nonprofit religious corporations from the employer definition. For counsel, that means small employers under five employees remain outside this statutory reach, but most small-to-medium employers will fall inside it; religious employers may assert the exclusion depending on their organizational form.
Genetic and medical-condition definitions
The statute defines “genetic information” to include genetic tests, family-member tests, family disease manifestation, and requests for genetic services or participation in genetic clinical research, and it explicitly excludes sex and age from the term. It separately defines “medical condition” to include cancer-related impairments and genetic characteristics tied to disease risk. These definitions will shape intake screening and evidentiary strategies in cases alleging disability, medical-condition discrimination, or misuse of genetic data.
Mental and physical disability definitions and ADA incorporation
The bill sets a broad definition for mental and physical disability, instructing that limitations be determined without regard to mitigating measures unless those measures themselves limit a major life activity. Crucially, subdivision (n) says if the federal ADA’s definition is broader, that broader coverage is incorporated and will prevail. That creates a two-way street: employers must consider both state text and potential ADA-provided expansions when determining coverage and accommodation duties.
Expanded definition of sex — pregnancy, breastfeeding, gender
This provision explicitly lists pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and related medical conditions as components of “sex,” and it defines gender to include gender identity and gender expression. It also cross-references other statutory material for perceived characteristics. For employers, the mechanical implication is that policies touching on pregnancy, lactation accommodations, dress codes, appearance rules, and facilities must be evaluated against a sex-protection framework.
Race and protective hairstyles
The bill expands race to include traits associated with race and then defines “protective hairstyles,” specifically naming braids, locs, and twists. This language limits the room for grooming or appearance policies that disproportionately affect certain racial groups and provides employers clear notice that commonly contested hair policies will be evaluated under race-discrimination principles.
Undue hardship factors for accommodations
Rather than leaving undue hardship to general common law, the statute sets out five factors for courts and agencies to weigh: the nature and cost of the accommodation; the facility’s resources and employee count; the overall resources and size of the covered entity; the type and composition of the workforce; and geographic separateness or administrative relationships between facilities. Employers denying accommodations should document each factor to support an undue-hardship finding.
Group or class complaints — declaratory clarification
The bill states that a “group or class complaint” alleging a pattern or practice is part of the law and labels that statement as declaratory of existing law. That is likely to matter for agency intake and posture: agencies and litigants will rely on it to pursue systemic claims rather than only individual adjudications.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Pregnant and breastfeeding employees: the bill expressly folds pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding-related conditions into the definition of sex, strengthening protections and the demand for workplace accommodations.
- Transgender and gender-nonconforming workers: by listing gender identity and gender expression under “sex,” the bill removes ambiguity and supports claims tied to appearance, dress codes, and access to facilities.
- Workers who wear race-associated or protective hairstyles: naming braids, locs, and twists as protected traits shields employees from grooming policies that disproportionately target Black hair styles.
- Immigrant workers with licenses under Vehicle Code §12801.9: the national-origin language protects those who hold driver’s licenses issued under that provision from discriminatory treatment tied to that status.
- Individuals with genetic markers or cancer histories: the clarified definitions of genetic information and medical condition make it clearer when those characteristics are covered and how they interact with confidentiality and accommodation rules.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers with five or more employees: these businesses must revise policies and payroll, provide training, handle accommodation requests under the new undue-hardship factors, and face potential expanded remedies.
- Human resources and compliance teams: HR departments will need to implement new procedures for intake, documentation of undue-hardship analyses, accommodation processes, lactation policies, and hair/grooming standards.
- Defense counsel and employer liability insurers: broader statutory definitions and an explicit remedies menu increase exposure to claims and may raise defense and settlement costs.
- State agencies and courts handling discrimination claims: the explicit authorization for group or pattern-or-practice complaints and the expanded protected classes may increase caseloads and require additional investigatory resources.
- Employers with driver-license screening practices (transportation, delivery, logistics): entities that require licenses for hiring or retention will need to reassess screening and non-discrimination policies related to licenses issued under §12801.9.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill increases workplace protections — broadening sex, race-related traits, reproductive choices, and disability coverage — while simultaneously imposing new operational and evidentiary burdens on employers. That creates a classic policy trade-off: stronger individual protections and clearer remedies on one side, and greater compliance costs, administrative complexity, and litigation exposure on the other, with little in the text to standardize how those competing priorities will be balanced in practice.
AB 2563 is primarily definitional, but that technical character belies a set of hard implementation questions. First, several of the definitions are broad and fact-dependent: “reproductive health decisionmaking” covers decisions to use or access a wide range of drugs, devices, products, or services, and “gender expression” and “protective hairstyles” can intersect with dress codes and safety requirements.
Employers will need granular policies explaining when and how legitimate business needs (safety, uniformity, licensing) override particular practices, and those justifications will be litigated on a case-by-case basis.
Second, the bill layers state and federal standards. Subdivision (n) declares that a broader ADA definition of disability is incorporated, which avoids some preemption conflicts but also creates shifting coverage depending on federal case law.
Similarly, the national-origin language protecting holders of licenses under §12801.9 interacts with existing licensing and background-check practices; employers that require clean driving records or specific license types will need to craft neutral, business-necessary criteria that do not have a discriminatory effect. Finally, the undue-hardship factors are explicit but nonquantitative; employers must prepare contemporaneous documentation on costs, resource allocation, and workforce composition because courts will evaluate those factors without a bright-line test.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.