By admin 
California has an opportunity to lead the nation in workplace equality. Legislators should pass Assembly Bill 1940 and make menopause discrimination explicitly unlawful.
Read more Hotel, apartments and retail planned for this vacant North Natomas lot
This bill, introduced by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon, D-City of Industry, would add perimenopause, menopause, postmenopause and related medical conditions to the definition of “sex” under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The bill would also require updated workplace notices and public education about employees’ rights to accommodations, leave and protection from retaliation.
The proposal matters because menopause has long been governed by law without being recognized as a legal issue. Employment rules shape whether workers can remain on the job while managing symptoms; insurance regulations determine whether treatment is affordable; medical education requirements influence what clinicians know; and public agencies determine what information reaches patients.
What is new is not law’s influence, but lawmakers’ willingness to acknowledge menopause explicitly and address it directly.
California now has the opportunity to lead that shift.
Across the country, states are beginning to enact reforms involving insurance coverage, clinician education, public-health information and workplace protections. Last year, Rhode Island adopted the nation’s first law expressly addressing workplace accommodations for menopause-related conditions. Other jurisdictions have pursued reforms involving treatment access, medical training and employment rights. Yet no state has California’s ability to set national workplace standards through the size of its economy, the reach of its employers and the influence of its civil-rights law.
AB 1940 would build on a familiar principle. California law already recognizes that pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and related medical conditions are inseparable from sex equality in the workplace. Menopause should not remain an exception.
For some workers, menopause symptoms are mild. For others, hot flashes, disrupted sleep, fatigue, anxiety, depression or difficulty concentrating can interfere with daily work. Existing law may already protect some employees through disability, leave or sex-discrimination rules, but those protections are fragmented and often unclear.
Workers may not know whether they can request an accommodation and employers may not know when they must begin an interactive process. Explicit statutory language would reduce that uncertainty and would clarify that menopause-related discrimination belongs within the ordinary framework of workplace civil rights.
Read more 2026 Change Makers
That does not mean every request must be granted or that every symptom creates a legal claim: Existing standards of reasonableness, qualification and undue hardship would still apply. AB 1940 would not create an unlimited entitlement. It would ensure that requests involving menopause are considered rather than dismissed because the statute never names the condition.
In many workplaces, useful accommodations may be modest, such as access to breaks, schedule flexibility, temperature adjustments, modified uniforms or time away for medical appointments. The proper response will depend on the employee, the job and the employer.
The point is not to dictate one solution. It is to make clear that menopause can be a legitimate workplace issue.
This bill is also an opportunity for California to influence national policy. State civil-rights innovations often become models for other legislatures, employers and eventually federal lawmakers. By naming menopause expressly, California would make visible a life stage that has remained hidden within legal categories created for other conditions.
For decades, the law shaped menopause while pretending it was merely private. California can help end that fiction. Passing AB 1940 would not solve every problem associated with menopause, but it would establish an important principle: Workers should not have to choose between managing a predictable life stage and participating fully in the workplace.
California should lead the nation by making that principle explicit.
Bridget Crawford is a law professor at Pace University. Emily Gold Waldman, also a law professor at Pace University, and Naomi R. Cahn, a law professor at the University of Virginia, also contributed to this piece. Crawford, Waldman and Cahn are the authors of “Hot Flash: How the Law Ignores Menopause and What We Can Do About It.”
Read more How hard is inflation hitting Sacramento area? Feds to start tracking stats