The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes specified employment practices unlawful, including the harassment of an employee directly by the employer or indirectly by agents of the employer with the employer's knowledge. FEHA requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide at least 2 hours of prescribed training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees within 6 months of their assumption of a supervisory position and once every 2 years, as specified. This bill would additionally require employers with 50 or more employees to include, as a component of that prescribed training and education for supervisors, training inclusive of harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. FEHA requires each employer to post a poster on discrimination in employment, which includes information relating to the illegality of sexual harassment, in a prominent and accessible location in the workplace. The bill would also require each employer to post a poster developed by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing regarding transgender rights in a prominent and accessible location in the workplace. The California Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act makes programs and services available to individuals with employment barriers and creates a board, composed of the Governor and Governor-appointed members who represent specified interests, including representatives of the state workforce, to carry out specified functions in furtherance of that act. This bill would expand the definition of an "individual with employment barriers" to include transgender and gender nonconforming individuals. The bill also would authorize the appointments to the board representing the state workforce to include representatives of community-based organizations that serve transgender and gender nonconforming individuals. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 14012 of the Unemployment Insurance Code proposed by AB 957 to be operative only if this bill and AB 957 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Sponsored bills
Existing law authorizes a governing body of a political subdivision, as defined, to declare a shelter crisis if the governing body makes a specified finding. Existing law authorizes a political subdivision to allow persons unable to obtain housing to occupy designated public facilities, as defined, during the period of a shelter crisis. Existing law provides that certain state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances are suspended during a shelter crisis, to the extent that strict compliance would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the shelter crisis. Existing law, upon a declaration of a shelter crisis by the City of San Jose, authorizes emergency housing to include an emergency bridge housing community for the homeless in that city. This bill, until January 1, 2021, upon a declaration of a shelter crisis by the City of Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Oakland, or San Diego, the County of Santa Clara, or the City and County of San Francisco, would authorize emergency housing to include homeless shelters in the City of Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Oakland, or San Diego, the County of Santa Clara, or the City and County of San Francisco, respectively. The bill, in lieu of compliance with local building approval procedures or state housing, health, habitability, planning and zoning, or safety standards, procedures, and laws, would authorize those jurisdictions to adopt by ordinance reasonable local standards for homeless shelters, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to review and approve the draft ordinance to ensure it addresses minimum health and safety standards and to provide its findings to committees of the Legislature, as provided. The bill would require the city, county, or city and county to develop a plan to address the shelter crisis, as specified. The bill would further require any of the specified jurisdictions that have declared a shelter crisis to annually report to the committees of the Legislature specific information on homeless shelters and permanent supportive housing, through January 1, 2021. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Cities of Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Diego, the County of Santa Clara, and the City and County of San Francisco.
Under existing law, an action may be brought for nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions. This bill would, for all contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018, require a direct contractor, as defined, making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other work, to assume, and be liable for, specified debt owed to a wage claimant that is incurred by a subcontractor, at any tier, acting under, by, or for the direct contractor for the wage claimant's performance of labor included in the subject of the original contract. The bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to bring an action under specified statutes or in a civil action to enforce this liability, as provided. The bill would also authorize a third party owed fringe or other benefits or a joint labor-management cooperation committee, as defined, to bring a civil action to enforce the liability against a direct contractor under these provisions, as specified. The bill would provide that it does not apply to any work being done by an employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state. The bill would require a subcontractor, upon request from the direct contractor, to provide specified information regarding the subcontractor's and third party's work on the project and would provide that the direct contractor could withhold disputed sums upon the subcontractor's failure to provide the requested information, as specified. The bill would provide that these obligations and remedies are in addition to any other remedy provided by law. The bill would provide that its provisions are severable.
The Medical Practice Act requires the Medical Board of California to adopt and administer standards for the continuing education of licensed physicians and surgeons and requires the board to require each licensed physician and surgeon to demonstrate satisfaction of the continuing education requirements at specified intervals. The act requires the board, in determining its continuing education requirements, to consider including courses on specified matters. This bill would require the board to consider including in its continuing education requirements a course in integrating mental and physical health care in primary care settings, especially as it pertains to early identification of mental health issues and exposure to trauma in children and young adults and their appropriate care and treatment.
(1) The Child Care and Development Services Act has a purpose of providing a comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective system of child care and development services for children from infancy to 13 years of age and their parents, including a full range of supervision, health, and support services through full- and part-time programs. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop standards for the implementation of quality child care programs. Existing law authorizes the County of Alameda and the County of Santa Clara, as a pilot project, to develop an individualized county child care subsidy plan, as provided. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2023, the Counties of Contra Costa, Marin, and Sonoma to develop individualized county child care subsidy plans, as specified. The bill would require the plans to be submitted by the counties to their local planning council and their respective county board of supervisors for approval, as specified. The bill would require the Early Education and Support Division of the State Department of Education to review and approve or disapprove the plans and any subsequent modifications to the plans and, in specified situations, would require the State Department of Social Services to review the plans. The bill would require the counties to annually prepare and submit to the Legislature, the State Department of Social Services, and the State Department of Education a report that contains specified information relating to the success of the counties' plans. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Contra Costa, Marin, and Sonoma. (2) Existing law authorizes the County of Alameda, as a pilot project, to develop an individualized county child care subsidy plan, as provided. Existing law requires the plan to include specified elements, including the development of a local policy, as provided. Existing law requires the local policy to, among other things, authorize an agency that provides child care and development services in the county through a contract with the State Department of Education and either provides direct services or contracts with licensed providers or centers to apply to the department to amend existing contracts in order to benefit from the local policy. This bill would instead require the local policy, among other things, to authorize an agency that provides child care and development services in the county through a contract with the department to apply to the department to amend existing contracts in order to benefit from the local policy. Existing law authorizes the local policy to supersede state law concerning child care subsidy programs with regard to certain factors, including eligibility criteria relating to CalWORKs participation, with exceptions. This bill would also authorize the local policy to supersede California state preschool eligibility periods, as specified, and would delete the above provisions relating to superseding eligibility criteria relating to CalWORKs participation and the exceptions. Existing law requires the plan to include a recognition that all funding sources utilized by direct service contractors that provide child care and development services in the County of Alameda and contractors that contract with licensed providers and centers are eligible to be included in the county's plan. This bill would instead require the plan to include a recognition that all funding sources utilized by contractors that provide child care and development services in the County of Alameda are eligible to be included in the county's plan.
Existing law requires a school district or county superintendent of schools maintaining a kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to provide a needy pupil, as defined, one nutritionally adequate free or reduced-price meal during each schoolday, and authorizes the school district or county superintendent of schools to use funds available from any federal or state program to comply with that requirement, as provided. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district and the county superintendent of schools to make paper applications and electronic applications for free or reduced-price meals available to pupils, as provided, and requires the applications to meet certain specifications and include certain information. This bill would, on or before September 1, 2018, require a school district or county superintendent of schools that has a very high poverty school, as defined, in its jurisdiction to apply to operate a federal universal meal service provision pursuant to specified federal law, and to begin providing breakfast and lunch free of charge through the universal meal service to all pupils at the very high poverty school upon state approval to operate that service. The bill would authorize a school district or county superintendent of schools to stop providing the universal free meal service at a school if the school ceases to be a very high poverty school. The bill would provide that certain charter schools are considered very high poverty schools for purposes of these provisions and would provide that those charter schools are required to comply with the requirements imposed on and are authorized to exercise the authority granted to school districts and county superintendents of schools pursuant to these provisions. Because the bill would impose additional duties on school districts, county superintendents of schools, and charter schools, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exempt a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school from these provisions if the governing board of the school district or county office of education, or the governing body of the charter school, adopts a resolution stating that it is unable to comply with, and demonstrating the reasons why it is unable to comply with, the requirements of these provisions due to fiscal hardship. Existing law requires the State Department of Education, in consultation with the State Department of Health Care Services, to develop and implement a process to use participation data from the Medi-Cal program to verify income to directly certify children whose families meet the applicable income criteria into the school meal program. This bill would require the State Department of Education to share that participation data with local educational agencies. The bill would impose specified requirements on the State Department of Education and local educational agencies relating to the privacy and confidentiality of that participation data. The bill would require a local educational agency participating in a federal school meal program to use that participation data, commencing with the participation data of pupils in the 2017–18 school year, to directly certify pupils eligible for free and reduced-price school meals, to the extent permitted under federal law. Because the bill would impose additional duties on these local educational agencies, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a school district or county superintendent of schools to determine a pupil's eligibility for free and reduced-price school meals based on data including the direct certification match and alternative measures of poverty pursuant to specified state and federal law. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, or California Family Rights Act (CFRA) , 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) for reason of a child born to, adopted by, or placed for foster care with, the employee, (2) to care for the employee's parent or spouse 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. Existing law prohibits an employer from refusing to allow a female employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take a leave for a reasonable time of up to 4 months before returning to work. Existing law also prohibits an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes that leave, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from refusing to allow an employee with more than 12 months of service with the employer, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, and who works at a worksite in which the employer employs at least 20 employees within 75 miles, to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of the child's birth, adoption, or foster care placement. The bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes this leave. The bill would allow the employer to recover coverage costs under specific circumstances. The bill would provide that it would not apply to an employee who is subject to both specified state law regarding family care and medical leave, and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Under the bill, if the employer employs both parents and they are entitled to leave pursuant to this bill for the same birth, adoption, or foster care placement, the parents' mandated parental leave would be capped at the amount granted to an employee by the bill. The bill would authorize the employer to grant simultaneous leave to these parents. This bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to hire, or from discharging, fining, suspending, expelling, or discriminating against, an individual for exercising the right to parental leave provided by this bill or giving information or testimony as to his or her own parental leave, or another person's parental leave, in an inquiry or proceeding related to rights guaranteed under this bill. The bill would additionally prohibit an employer from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this bill. The bill would require the Fair Employment and Housing Council, to the extent that state regulations interpreting CFRA are within the scope of, and not inconsistent with the bill or with other state law, to incorporate those regulations by reference to govern leave under the bill. Under existing law, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing is authorized to provide mediation services to parties involved in actions under its jurisdiction. This bill, until January 1, 2020, would require the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, upon receiving funding from the Legislature, to create a parental leave mediation pilot program, as specified. Under the pilot program, within 60 days of receipt of a right-to-sue notice, an employer may request all parties to participate in the department's Mediation Division Program. If the employer makes such a request, the bill would prohibit an employee from pursuing any civil action under these provisions until the mediation is complete, as defined, which would include an employee's election not to participate in mediation. The bill would provide that the employee's statute of limitations would be tolled during the course of the mediation, as specified.
(1) Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district, and, prior to the sale, lease, or rental of any excess real property, except rentals not exceeding 30 days, requires the governing board of each school district, to appoint a school district advisory committee to advise the governing board of the school district in the development of districtwide policies and procedures governing the use or disposition of school buildings or space in school buildings which is not needed for school purposes. Notwithstanding that law, existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to elect not to appoint an advisory committee in the case of a lease or rental to a private educational institution for the purpose of offering summer school in a facility of the school district. This bill would also authorize the governing board of a school district to elect not to appoint a school district advisory committee in the sale, lease, or rental of excess real property to be used for teacher or school district employee housing. Existing law exempts certain transactions from the requirements that otherwise apply to the sale or lease of real property by a school district if certain conditions are met, including that the financing proceeds obtained by the school district pursuant to the transaction are expended solely for specified capital outlay purposes. This bill would specify that the construction, reconstruction, or renovation of rental housing facilities for school district employees is a permissible capital outlay expenditure for purposes of those provisions. (2) The California Constitution provides that all property is taxable, and requires that it be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value, unless otherwise provided by the California Constitution or federal law. The California Constitution exempts from taxation, among other types of property, property used exclusively for public schools, community colleges, state colleges, and state universities. Existing property tax law implements these exemptions for property used exclusively for public schools, community colleges, state colleges, and state universities, including the University of California. This bill would specify that the exemption for school, college, or university property applies to an interest in property, including a possessory interest, belonging to the state, a county, a city, a school district, a community college district, or any combination thereof, that is used to provide rental housing for employees of one or more public school or community college districts. By increasing the duties of local assessors with respect to applying the above-described property tax exemptions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(1) Existing law requires the State Architect to establish and publicize a program for voluntary certification by the state of any person who meets specified criteria as a certified access specialist (CASp) , as provided. Existing law, on and after January 1, 2013, and until December 31, 2017, inclusive, requires that any applicant for an original or renewal of a local business license or equivalent instrument or permit to pay an additional fee of $1 for that license, instrument, or permit, to be collected by the city, county, or city and county that issued the license, instrument, or permit. This bill would extend the operation of this fee indefinitely and, on and after January 1, 2018, and until December 31, 2023, increase the amount from $1 to $4. The bill would revert the amount of the fee back to $1 on and after January 1, 2024. The bill, in any city, county, or city and county that does not issue a business license or an equivalent instrument or permit, would require an applicant for a building permit to pay an additional fee of $4 on and after January 1, 2018, and until December 31, 2023, and an additional fee of $1 on and after January 1, 2024, for the building permit, to be collected by the city, county, or city and county that issued the building permit. (2) Existing law requires that the city, county, or city and county retain 70% of the fees collected under the above-described provision, to be used to, among other things, fund increased CASp services in that jurisdiction for the public, thereby making an appropriation. Existing law requires that the remaining 30% of the fees be transmitted on a quarterly basis to the Division of the State Architect for deposit in the Disability Access and Education Revolving Fund, a continuously appropriated fund. This bill, on and after January 1, 2018, and until December 31, 2023, inclusive, would require the city, county, or city and county to instead retain 90% of the fees collected. The bill would revert the amount retained back to 70% on and after January 1, 2024. The bill would also require the moneys retained by the city, county, or city and county to instead be deposited in a special fund, established by the city, county, or city and county to be known as the "CASp Certification and Training Fund," and used for increased CASp training and certification within that local jurisdiction, thereby making an appropriation by expanding the purposes for which the retained fee moneys are required to be spent. By extending the operation of fees deposited in the Disability Access and Education Revolving Fund, thereby increasing the amount of money in a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation. (3) By extending the operation of the above-described fee, thereby requiring local officials to collect and allocate these revenues beyond December 31, 2018, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, with the approval of the State Board of Education, to develop a high school exit examination in English language arts and mathematics in accordance with state academic content standards. Existing law requires each pupil completing grade 12 to successfully pass the high school exit examination as a condition of receiving a diploma of graduation or a condition of graduation from high school, except for the 2015–16, 2016–17, and 2017–18 school years. This bill would eliminate the high school exit examination and would remove it as a condition of receiving a diploma of graduation or a condition of graduation from high school. The bill would also make clarifying, conforming, and nonsubstantive changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 47605 of the Education Code proposed by AB 1360 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1360 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.