Existing law specifies that a food facility that donates any food that is fit for human consumption at the time it was donated to a nonprofit charitable organization or a food bank is not liable for any damage or injury resulting from the consumption of the donated food, unless the injury resulted from negligence or a willful act in the preparation or handling of the donated food. This bill, the California Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, would expand these provisions to persons and gleaners who donate food, as defined. The bill would narrow the exception to protection from liability to injury resulting from gross negligence or intentional misconduct. The bill would specify that the immunity from civil liability provided by these provisions applies to the donation of food that is fit for human consumption and that has exceeded the labeled shelf life date recommended by the manufacturer, provided, in instances of perishable food, the person that distributes the food to the end recipient makes a good faith evaluation that the food is wholesome. The bill would authorize food facilities to donate food directly to end recipients for consumption. Existing law specifies that a nonprofit charitable organization or food bank is not liable for an injury or death from distributing food without charge that is fit for human consumption unless the injury or death is a direct result of negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct. This bill would narrow the exception to protection from liability to injury or death as a direct result of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Existing law authorizes a person engaged in the business of processing, distributing, or selling an agricultural product to donate, free of charge, a product that is in a condition that it may be used as food for human beings, to a nonprofit charitable organization. Existing law limits the liability of a county, its agencies, and persons who donate agricultural products. Existing law provides that these provisions do not relieve any nonprofit charitable organization from any liability for any injury, including, but not limited to, injury resulting from the ingesting of an agricultural product, as a result of receiving, accepting, gathering, or removing any donated agricultural product. This bill would expand this provision to include a gleaner and also authorize food facilities to donate food directly to end recipients for consumption. The bill would specify that these donations are protected under this act if the donated food has exceeded the labeled shelf life date recommended by the manufacturer, provided, in instances of perishable food, the person that distributes the food to the end recipient makes a good faith evaluation that the food is wholesome. The bill would repeal these provisions relating to not relieving nonprofit charitable organizations from liability for injuries. Existing law authorizes a food facility to donate food to a food bank or to any other nonprofit charitable organization for distribution to persons free of charge. Existing law exempts a food facility that donates food from civil or criminal liability or penalty for violation of any laws, regulations, or ordinances regulating the labeling or packaging of the donated product or, with respect to any other laws, regulations, or ordinances, for a violation occurring after the time of the donation. This bill would also authorize a person or gleaner to donate food to a food bank or to a nonprofit charitable organization and exempt the person or gleaner from civil or criminal liability relating to the donated food. The bill would also expand these provisions to include the donation of food by food facilities directly to end recipients. The bill would specify that the immunity from civil or criminal liability or penalty applies to the donation of food that has exceeded the labeled shelf life date recommended by the manufacturer, provided, in instances of perishable food, the person that distributes the food to the end recipient makes a good faith evaluation that the food is wholesome. The bill would require enforcement officers to promote the recovery of food fit for human consumption, as specified. Because the bill would require local officials to perform additional duties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make other conforming and nonsubstantive changes. 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law regulates the packaging, labeling, and advertising of drugs and devices. This bill would generally prohibit a person who manufactures a prescription drug from offering in California any discount, repayment, product voucher, or other reduction in an individual's out-of-pocket expenses associated with his or her health insurance, health care service plan, or other health coverage, including, but not limited to, a copayment, coinsurance, or deductible, for any prescription drug if a lower cost generic drug is covered under the individual's health insurance, health care service plan, or other health coverage on a lower cost-sharing tier that is designated as therapeutically equivalent to the prescription drug manufactured by that person or if the active ingredients of the drug are contained in products regulated by the federal Food and Drug Administration, are available without prescription at a lower cost, and are not otherwise contraindicated for the condition for which the prescription drug is approved. The bill would specify exceptions to these prohibitions, including, among other things, if the individual has completed any applicable step therapy or prior authorization for the prescription drug as mandated by the individual's health insurer, health care service plan, or other health coverage, or if a rebate is received by a state agency. The bill would also clarify that it does not prohibit an entity, including a manufacturer of prescription drugs, from offering a pharmaceutical product free of any cost, if the product is free of cost to both the patient and his or her health insurer, health care service plan, or other health coverage, that it does not affect a pharmacist's ability to substitute a prescription drug, and that it does not prohibit or limit assistance to a patient provided by an independent charity patient assistance program, as defined.
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance (DOI) . Existing law requires health care service plans and health insurers to file specified rate information with DMHC or DOI, as applicable, for health care service plan contracts or health insurance policies in the individual or small group markets and for health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies in the large group market. Existing law requires health care service plans and health insurers to also disclose specified supporting information for the rate information described above. Existing law requires the DMHC and DOI, as applicable, to conduct an annual public meeting regarding large group rates within 3 months of posting that information. This bill would require health care service plans or health insurers that file the above-described rate information to report to DMHC or DOI, on a date no later than the reporting of the rate information, specified cost information regarding covered prescription drugs, including generic drugs, brand name drugs, and specialty drugs, dispensed as provided. DMHC and DOI would be required to compile the reported information into a report for the public and legislators that demonstrates the overall impact of drug costs on health care premiums and publish the reports on their Internet Web sites by January 1 of each year. Except for the report, DMHC and DOI would be required to keep confidential all information provided pursuant to these provisions. The bill would also require health care service plans or health insurers that file the above-described rate information to disclose to DMHC and DOI with the rate information specified information regarding the relation of prescription drug costs to plan or insurer spending and premium charges. The bill would instead require DMHC and DOI to conduct an annual public meeting within 4 months of posting the rate information described above. Because a willful violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require a manufacturer of a prescription drug with a wholesale acquisition cost of more than $40 that is purchased or reimbursed by specified purchasers, including state agencies, health care service plans, health insurers, and pharmacy benefit managers, to notify the purchaser of an increase in the wholesale acquisition cost of a prescription drug if the increase in the wholesale acquisition cost for a course of therapy, as defined, exceeds a specified threshold. The bill would require that notice to be given at least 60 days prior to the planned effective date of the increase. Commencing no earlier than January 1, 2019, the bill would require the manufacturer to notify the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) of specified information relating to that increase in wholesale acquisition cost on a quarterly basis at a time and in a format prescribed by the office. The bill would require the manufacturer to notify OSHPD of specified information relating to the wholesale acquisition cost, marketing, and usage of a new prescription drug if the cost exceeds a specified threshold, and would require OSHPD to publish that information on its Internet Web site, as specified. The bill would require OSHPD to enforce the provisions requiring manufacturer reporting to OSHPD and would subject a manufacturer to liability for a civil penalty if the information described above is not reported. The bill would authorize OSHPD to adopt regulations or issue guidance for the implementation of these provisions. The bill would require the California Research Bureau to report to the Legislature on the implementation of these provisions, and would subject these provisions to review by the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature, as specified. Existing law establishes the California Health Data and Planning Fund within the office for the purpose of receiving and expending certain fee revenues. Existing law establishes the Managed Care Fund for the purpose of supporting the administration of DMHC. Existing law establishes the Insurance Fund for, among other things, the support of DOI as authorized in the annual Budget Act. This bill would prohibit the use of any moneys in the fund from being used for the implementation of these provisions. The bill would provide that funding for the office to conduct the activities described above shall be provided, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, from transfers of moneys from the Managed Care Fund and the Insurance Fund, as specified. This bill would provide that the above-described provisions are severable. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law, the California Healthy Youth Act, requires school districts to ensure that all pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, receive comprehensive sexual health education and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention education, as specified. Under the act, this instruction includes, among other things, information about sexual harassment, sexual assault, adolescent relationship abuse, intimate partner violence, and sex trafficking. This bill would require that instruction to additionally include information about sexual abuse and to include information about human trafficking instead of sex trafficking. To the extent that this requirement would impose additional duties on school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law authorizes a school district to provide sexual abuse and sex trafficking prevention education, as described, and authorizes the periodic conducting of in-service training of school district personnel relating to sexual abuse and sex trafficking. This bill would recast those provisions to instead authorize a school district to provide abuse, including sexual abuse, and human trafficking prevention education, and to require the availability and periodic conducting of continuation, rather than in-service, training of school district personnel relating to abuse, including sexual abuse, and human trafficking. (3) Existing law establishes the Commercially Sexually Exploited Children Program, which is administered by the State Department of Social Services, in order to adequately serve children who have been sexually exploited. The program requires the department, in consultation with the County Welfare Directors Association of California, to develop an allocation methodology to distribute funding for the program. The program authorizes the use of these funds by counties electing to participate in the program for certain prevention and intervention activities and services to children who are victims, or at risk of becoming victims, of commercial sexual exploitation, for the provision of training to county children's services workers to identify, intervene, and provide case management services to children who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation, and for the training of county workers and foster caregivers for the prevention and identification of potential victims, as specified. This bill would amend various provisions of the program to include components relating to education and training, as specified. Existing law requires a county that elects to receive funds from the program to develop an interagency protocol to be utilized in serving sexually exploited children. Existing law requires the protocol to be developed by a team that includes representatives from specified agencies. This bill would require that team to include representatives from the county office of education and the sheriff's department, as specified. Under existing law, the program also requires the department to ensure that the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System is capable of collecting data concerning children who are commercially sexually exploited, as specified. Existing law requires the department to implement these provisions by June 1, 2015. This bill would extend the requirement that the provision be implemented to June 1, 2018. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 51934 of the Education Code proposed by AB 643 to be operative only if this bill and AB 643 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(1) Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, provides for the comprehensive regulation of campaign financing and activities. The act requires a committee that supports or opposes ballot measures to name and identify itself using a name or phrase that clearly identifies the economic or other special interests of its major donors of $50,000 or more. The act also requires that the identity of a common employer shared by major donors be disclosed. This bill would repeal these provisions. (2) The act defines "expenditure" as a payment, a forgiveness of a loan, a payment of a loan by a 3rd party, or an enforceable promise to make a payment, unless it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that it is not made for political purposes. This bill, which would be known as the California Disclose Act, would describe circumstances in which a payment would be made for political purposes within the meaning of the definition of "expenditure." (3) The act prohibits a candidate or committee from sending a mass mailing unless the name, street address, and city of the candidate or committee are shown on the outside of each piece of mail in the mass mailing, as specified. This bill would additionally require the name of such an entity to be disclosed in a mass electronic mailing, as defined, that the entity sends. The bill would provide that these disclosure requirements do not apply if the mass mailing or mass electronic mailing is paid for by an independent expenditure. (4) The act prohibits a candidate, committee, or slate mailer organization from expending campaign funds to pay for specified telephone calls that advocate support of, or opposition to, a candidate, ballot measure, or both, unless the name of the organization that authorized or paid for the call is disclosed to the recipient of the call during the course of each call. This bill would instead apply these requirements to a candidate, a candidate controlled committee established for an elective office for the controlling candidate, a political party committee, and a slate mailer organization that expends campaign funds to pay for such telephone calls. The bill would provide that these disclosure requirements do not apply if the telephone call is paid for by an independent expenditure. (5) The act also requires advertisements, as defined, to include prescribed disclosure statements, including, among others, a requirement that the disclosure statements include the names of the persons who made the 2 highest cumulative contributions, as defined, to the committee paying for the advertisement. This bill would repeal and recast provisions of the act relating to advertisement disclosure statements. The bill would revise the definition of "advertisement" to exclude a number of communications, including communications that involve wearing apparel, sky writing, and certain electronic media communications, as specified. The bill would also replace existing advertisement disclosure statements with newly prescribed disclosure statements that identify the name of the committee paying for the advertisement and the top contributors to that committee. The bill would define "top contributors" for purposes of these provisions as the persons from whom the committee paying for the advertisement received its 3 highest cumulative contributions, as specified. The bill would exempt certain committees, including committees that make independent expenditures totaling $1,000 or more in a calendar year, from the requirement to disclose the top contributors in advertisement disclosure statements. The bill would also prescribe location and format criteria for the disclosure statements that are specific to radio and telephone, television and video, print, and electronic media advertisements. (6) The act imposes, in addition to other penalties, a fine of up to triple the amount of the cost of an advertisement on a person who violates the disclosure requirements for advertisements. This bill would revise the scope of violations subject to that fine by specifying that it applies to certain disclosure requirements and intentional violations. (7) The act prohibits a person from making a contribution as an intermediary on behalf of another person without disclosing to the recipient of the contribution specified information about both the intermediary and the source of the contribution. The act also prohibits a person from making a contribution to a committee on the condition or with the agreement that it will be contributed to a particular candidate unless the contribution is disclosed in compliance with those requirements for contributions made by an intermediary. This bill would prohibit a person from making a contribution to a committee or candidate that is earmarked unless the contribution is disclosed in compliance with the requirements for contributions made by an intermediary. The bill would also describe circumstances in which a contribution is deemed to be earmarked. The bill would impose additional disclosure requirements in connection with earmarked contributions from one committee to another. (8) Because a violation of the act is punishable as a misdemeanor, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (9) The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, authorizes the consumption of nonmedical marijuana, also known as adult-use cannabis, by persons over 21 years of age and establishes a system for the licensure and regulation of certain commercial nonmedical marijuana activities. Existing law, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, expands and modifies this system to also include the licensure and regulation of certain commercial medicinal cannabis activities. Existing law prescribes the manner in which contracts may be created and requires that a contract be for a lawful object. Under existing law a contract that is contrary to an express provision of law, contrary to the policy of express law, or that is otherwise contrary to good morals is not lawful. This bill would provide that commercial activity relating to medicinal cannabis or adult-use cannabis conducted in compliance with state law and any applicable local standards and regulations is a lawful object of a contract, is not contrary to an express policy or provision of law or to good morals, and is not against public policy. Existing law grants a lawyer's client a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between the client and lawyer, as defined, if the privilege is claimed by the holder of the privilege, a person who is authorized to claim the privilege by the holder, or the person who was the lawyer at the time of the confidential communication, as specified. Existing law excepts communications from the privilege if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit, or plan to commit, a crime or fraud. This bill would provide that the above exception does not apply to legal services rendered in compliance with state or local laws on medicinal cannabis or adult-use cannabis and that confidential communications provided for the purpose of rendering those services are confidential communications, as specified.
(1) Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 3, 5, or 8 years in the state prison to expose another person to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by engaging in unprotected sexual activity when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV. Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 2, 4, or 6 years for any person to donate blood, tissue, or, under specified circumstances, semen or breast milk, if the person knows that he or she has acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) , or that he or she has tested reactive to HIV. Existing law provides that a person who is afflicted with a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease who willfully exposes himself or herself to another person, or any person who willfully exposes another person afflicted with the disease to someone else, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would repeal those provisions. The bill would instead make the intentional transmission of an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months if certain circumstances apply, including that the defendant knows he or she or a 3rd party is afflicted with the disease, that the defendant acts with the specific intent to transmit or cause an afflicted 3rd party to transmit the disease to another person, that the defendant or the afflicted 3rd party engages in conduct that poses a substantial risk of transmission, as defined, that the defendant or the afflicted 3rd party transmits the disease to the other person, and if the exposure occurs through interaction with the defendant and not a 3rd party, that the person exposed to the disease during voluntary interaction with the defendant did not know that the defendant was afflicted with the disease. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor to attempt to intentionally transmit an infectious and communicable disease, as specified, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 90 days. This bill would make willful exposure to an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months, and would prohibit a health officer, or a health officer's designee, from issuing a maximum of 2 instructions to a defendant that would result in a violation of this provision. The bill would impose various requirements upon the court in order to prevent the public disclosure of the identifying characteristics, as defined, of the complaining witness and the defendant. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Under existing law, if a defendant has been previously convicted of prostitution or of another specified sexual offense, and in connection with the conviction a blood test was administered, as specified, with positive test results for AIDS, of which the defendant was informed, the previous conviction and positive blood test results are to be charged in any subsequent accusatory pleading charging a violation of prostitution. Existing law makes the defendant guilty of a felony if the previous conviction and informed test results are found to be true by the trier of fact or are admitted by the defendant. This bill would delete that provision. The bill would also vacate any conviction, dismiss any charge, and legally deem that an arrest under the deleted provision never occurred. The bill would also authorize a person serving a sentence as a result of a violation of the deleted provision to petition for a recall or dismissal of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case. The bill would require a court to vacate the conviction and resentence the person to any remaining counts while giving credit for any time already served. (3) Existing law requires the court to order a defendant convicted for a violation of soliciting or engaging in prostitution for the first time to complete instruction in the causes and consequences of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and to submit to testing for AIDS. Existing law requires such a defendant, as a condition of either probation or participating in a drug diversion program, to participate in an AIDS education program, as specified. This bill would repeal those provisions. (4) The bill would also make other conforming changes. (5) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(1) Existing law, the State Bar Act, makes it a cause for suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for any member of the State Bar to report suspected immigration status or threaten to report suspected immigration status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative action or his or her family member, as defined, to a federal, state, or local agency because the witness or party exercises or has exercised a right related to his or her employment. This bill would expand that provision to make it a cause for suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for a member of the State Bar to report suspected immigration status or threaten to report suspected immigration status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative action or his or her family member, as defined, to a federal, state, or local agency because the witness or party exercises or has exercised a right related to the hiring of residential real property. (2) Existing law provides that a tenant of real property, property for a term less than life, or the executor of his or her estate, is guilty of unlawful detainer if, among other things, he or she continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, of the property or any part of the property, after the expiration of the term for which it is let to him or her, except as specified. Existing law authorizes a tenant of residential real property to assert as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action based upon a default in the payment of rent that the lessor failed to comply with certain requirements relating to the safety and habitability of the dwelling. This bill would prohibit a lessor from causing a tenant or occupant to quit involuntarily or bring an action to recover possession because of the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, occupant, or other person known to the lessor to be associated with a tenant or occupant, unless the lessor is complying with any legal obligation under any federal government program that provides for rent limitations or rental assistance to a qualified tenant. The bill would authorize a tenant or occupant to assert as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action that a lessor violated this provision. The bill would also establish a rebuttable presumption that an affirmative defense is successful if the lessor approved the tenant or occupant to take possession of the unit before filing the unlawful detainer action and included in the unlawful detainer action specified claims. (3) Existing law makes it unlawful for a lessor to engage in specified activities for the purpose of influencing a lessee to vacate a dwelling, including using, or threatening to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct that interferes with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises and that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person. This bill would also prohibit a lessor from threatening to disclose information regarding or relating to the immigration status or citizenship status of a tenant, occupant, or other person associated with a tenant or occupant for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling. (4) Existing law prohibits a lessor, or an agent of a lessor, from making any inquiry regarding or based on the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of residential real property, or from requiring a tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of the rental property make any statement, representation, or certification concerning his or her immigration or citizenship status. Existing law provides that the prohibitions described above do not prohibit a lessor from complying with any legal obligation under federal law. This bill would also prohibit a lessor, or an agent of a lessor, from disclosing to any person or entity information regarding or relating to the immigration or citizenship status of any tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of the rental property for the purpose of, or with the intent of, harassing or intimidating a tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant, retaliating against a tenant or occupant for the exercise of his or her rights, influencing a tenant or occupant to vacate a dwelling, or recovering possession of the dwelling. The bill would clarify that the term "federal law" in the provision described above includes any legal obligation of a lessor under a federal government program that provides for rent limitations or rental assistance to a qualified tenant, and would broaden that provision to include any legal obligation of a lessor under a subpoena, warrant, or other order issued by a court. This bill would make it unlawful for a lessor to disclose to any immigration authority, law enforcement agency, or local, state, or federal agency information regarding or relating to the immigration or citizenship status of any tenant, occupant, or other person known to the lessor to be associated with a tenant or occupant, as provided, for the purpose of, or with the intent of, harassing or intimidating a tenant or occupant, retaliating against a tenant or occupant for the exercise of his or her rights, influencing a tenant or occupant to vacate a dwelling, or recovering possession of the dwelling, unless the lessor is complying with any legal obligation under federal law, or a subpoena, warrant, or order issued by a court. The bill would require a court to order a lessor to pay specified civil penalties in the event of a violation of these provisions to the tenant, and to issue injunctive relief to prevent the lessor from engaging in similar conduct in the future, and would require the court to notify the district attorney of the county in which the real property for hire at issue was located of a potential violation of specified laws relating to extortion. The bill would also require a court to award attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in an action under these provisions. The bill would prohibit a tenant, occupant, or person known to the landlord to be associated with a tenant or occupant, from waiving his or her rights under these provisions. The bill would authorize a nonprofit organization exempt from federal income taxation to bring an action for injunctive relief under these provisions. (5) Existing law provides that, if a lessor retaliates against a lessee of a dwelling for exercising his or her rights or because of a complaint to an appropriate agency as to tenantability and if the lessee is not in default as to the payment of rent, the lessor may not recover possession, cause the lessee to quit involuntarily, increase the rent, or decrease any services within 180 days of the occurrence of specified events. This bill would provide that a lessor would violate that prohibition if the lessor reported, or threatened to report, the lessee, or individuals known to the lessor to be associated with the lessee, to immigration authorities, but would provide that a lessor would not violate that prohibition if the lessor was complying with any legal obligation under any federal government program that provides for rent limitations or rental assistance to a qualified tenant. (6) Existing law prohibits a lessor from retaliating against a lessee because he or she has lawfully organized or participated in a lessees' association or an organization advocating lessees' rights or has lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law by increasing rent, decreasing services, causing a lessee to quit involuntarily, bringing an action to recover possession, or from threatening to do any of those acts. This bill would provide that a lessor would violate that prohibition if the lessor reported, or threatened to report, the lessee, or individuals known to the lessor to be associated with the lessee, to immigration authorities, but would provide that a lessor would not violate that prohibition if the lessor was complying with any legal obligation under any federal government program that provides for rent limitations or rental assistance to a qualified tenant. (7) Existing law declares that all protections, rights, and remedies available under state law are available to all individuals in the state who have applied for employment or are employed, regardless of immigration status, as specified. Existing law also declares, for the purposes of enforcing state labor, employment, civil rights, and employee housing laws, that a person's immigration status is irrelevant to the issue of liability and that discovery into a person's immigration status is prohibited unless the person seeking to make the inquiry has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the inquiry is necessary to comply with federal immigration law. Existing law also provides that the immigration status of a minor child seeking recovery under any applicable law is irrelevant to the issues of liability or remedy and would prohibit discovery or other inquiry in a civil action or proceeding into a minor child's immigration status, with specified exceptions. This bill would declare that the immigration or citizenship status of any person is irrelevant to any issue of liability or remedy under specified provisions of law relating to the rights of tenants, and would prohibit inquiry being made in a civil action initiated to enforce those laws into a person's immigration or citizenship status unless 2 exceptions to that prohibition apply. (8) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1940.3 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 299 to be operative only if this bill and AB 299 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(1) Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University; the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California; the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges; and independent institutions of higher education as the 4 segments of postsecondary education in this state. Existing provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act set forth the missions and functions of these 4 postsecondary educational segments. No provision of the Donahoe Higher Education Act applies to the University of California except to the extent that the regents, by appropriate resolution, make that provision applicable. This bill would express findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to the possible impacts on public postsecondary educational institutions in this state of changes in federal immigration policies and enforcement. The bill would add to the Donahoe Higher Education Act provisions that would require the Trustees of the California State University, the governing boards of community college districts, and independent institutions of higher education that are qualifying institutions for purposes of the Cal Grant Program, and would request the regents, to the fullest extent consistent with state and federal law, to: refrain from disclosing personal information concerning students, faculty, and staff, except under specified circumstances; advise all students, faculty, and staff to notify the office of the chancellor or president, or his or her designee, as soon as possible, if he or she is advised that an immigration officer, as defined, is expected to enter, or has entered, the campus to execute a federal immigration order; notify, as soon as possible, the emergency contact of a student, faculty, or staff person if there is reason to suspect that the person has been taken into custody as the result of an immigration enforcement action; comply with a request from an immigration officer for access to nonpublic areas of the campus only upon presentation of a judicial warrant, except as specified; advise all students, faculty, and staff responding to or having contact with an immigration officer executing a federal immigration order, to promptly refer the entity or individual to the office of the chancellor or president, or his or her designee, for purposes of verifying the legality of any warrant, court order, or subpoena; designate a staff person to serve as a point of contact for those who may be subject to immigration actions, as specified; maintain a contact list of legal services providers who provide legal immigration representation, and provide it free of charge to any and all students who request it; adopt and implement, by March 1, 2019, the model policy developed by the Attorney General or an equivalent policy pursuant to a specified statute, limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, as specified; post on its Internet Web site, and provide via email quarterly or each semester to all students, faculty, and staff, and update as often as is necessary, a copy of the policy referenced above, and guidance informing them of their rights under state and federal immigration laws and how to respond to a federal immigration action or order; and ensure that certain benefits and services provided to undocumented students are continued in the event that they are subject to a federal immigration order. Because this bill would create new duties for community college districts, it would constitute a state-mandated local program. (2) 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 prohibits an employer or other person or entity from engaging in, or to directing another person or entity to engage in, unfair immigration-related practices against a person for exercising specified rights. Existing law defines unfair immigration-related practices for these purposes. Existing law grants the Labor Commissioner access to places of labor and authorizes the commissioner to conduct investigations and prosecute actions in relation to the prescribed duties of the office. Existing law creates the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund, moneys in which, upon appropriation by the Legislature, are available to support the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. This bill would impose various requirements on public and private employers with regard to federal immigration agency immigration worksite enforcement actions. Except as otherwise required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer or other person acting on the employer's behalf from providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter nonpublic areas of a place of labor unless the agent provides a judicial warrant, except as specified. Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer or other person acting on the employer's behalf from providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer's employee records without a subpoena or court order, subject to a specified exception. The bill would grant the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General the exclusive authority to enforce these provisions and would require that any penalty recovered be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund. The bill would prescribe penalties for failure to satisfy the prohibitions described above of $2,000 up to $5,000 for a first violation and $5,000 up to $10,000 for each subsequent violation, as defined. The bill would specify circumstances for which penalties do not apply. The bill, except as required by federal law, would require an employer to provide a current employee notice containing specified information, by posting in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment information, of an inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records conducted by an immigration agency within 72 hours of receiving the federal notice of inspection. The bill would require an employer, upon reasonable request, to provide an affected employee a copy of the notice of inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner, by July 1, 2018, to create a template for these purposes and make it available, as specified. The bill would require an employer to provide to an affected current employee, and to the employee's authorized representative, if any, a copy of the written immigration agency notice that provides for the inspection results and written notice of the obligations of the employer and the affected employee arising from the action, as specified. The bill would define affected employee for these purposes. The bill would prescribe penalties for failure to provide the notices of $2,000 up to $5,000 for a first violation and $5,000 up to $10,000 for each subsequent violation, except as specified, to be collected by the Labor Commissioner. Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer from reverifying the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by specified federal law. The bill would prescribe a penalty of up to $10,000 for a violation of this prohibition to be recoverable by the Labor Commissioner.