Family and medical leave.
Summary
Existing law, the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, as defined, to refuse to grant a request by an eligible employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period (1) to bond with a child who was born to, adopted by, or placed for foster care with, the employee, (2) to care for the employee's parent, spouse, or child who has a serious health condition, as defined, or (3) because the employee is suffering from a serious health condition rendering him or her unable to perform the functions of the job. Under the act, "child" means a biological, adopted, foster, or stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis, who is either under 18 years of age or an adult dependent child. The act defines "parent" to mean the employee's biological, foster, or adoptive parent, stepparent, legal guardian, or other person who stood in loco parentis to the employee when the employee was a child. This bill would increase the circumstances under which an employee is entitled to protected leave pursuant to the Family Rights Act by (1) eliminating the age and dependency elements from the definition of "child," thereby permitting an employee to take protected leave to care for his or her independent adult child suffering from a serious health condition, (2) expanding the definition of "parent" to include an employee's parent-in-law, and (3) permitting an employee to also take leave to care for a seriously ill grandparent, sibling, grandchild, or domestic partner, as defined.
Bill status
passed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Aug 2012
Assembly Passage
May 2012
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 23, 2012
Last action Aug 16, 2012
Floor votes · Assembly May 30, 2012
How they voted
45–25
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 72
May 30, 2012
D
Democratic45
100% Yea
I
Independent1
0% Nay
R
Republican26
96% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
14
Key actions
4
Committee
9
Aug 16, 2012
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Aug 6, 2012
Committee
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jun 28, 2012
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (June 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 14, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on L. & I.R.
upper
May 30, 2012
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (45-25-2)
assembly
May 25, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 25).
lower
Apr 18, 2012
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Mar 29, 2012
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (March 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Mar 8, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on L. & E.
lower
Feb 24, 2012
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
SS
Sandré Swanson
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2039
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2039. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline