Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against an employee who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking for taking time off work to obtain specified relief or because of the employee's status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the victim provides notice to the employer of the status or the employer has actual knowledge of the status. Existing law authorizes an employee to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for a violation of these prohibitions within one year from the date of occurrence of the violation. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to refuse to rehire, promote, or restore an employee who has been determined to be so eligible by a grievance procedure or legal hearing. This bill would expand the scope of these provisions by defining "employer" for purposes of these provisions to mean any person employing another under any appointment or contract of hire and to include the state, political subdivisions of the state, and municipalities. The bill would also prohibit an employer from discharging or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against an employee because of the employee's status as a victim of sexual harassment. The bill would provide that "sexual harassment" has the same meaning as in a specified provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The bill, commencing July 1, 2020, would establish a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation based on the employee's status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, or stalking if an employer takes specific actions within 90 days following either the date when the victim provides notice to the employer or when the employer has actual knowledge of the status. The bill would allow the presumption to be rebutted by evidence that the employer has a nonretaliatory business reason for the adverse action taken. By expanding the definition of a crime, 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, including the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the Ralph C. Dills Act, the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act, the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act, Judicial Council Employer-Employee Relations Act, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act, as well as provisions commonly referred to as the Educational Employment Relations Act and the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act, regulates the labor relations of the state, the courts, and specified local public agencies and their employees. Existing law establishes other requirements relating to labor relations that are applicable to specified transit agencies. These acts grant specified public employees the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their choosing and require public agency employers, among other things, to meet and confer with representatives of recognized employee organizations and exclusive representatives on terms and conditions of employment. These acts generally require the public entities in this context to grant employee representatives of recognized employee organizations reasonable time off without loss of compensation or benefits for certain purposes in connection with labor relations, commonly referred to as release time. This bill would prescribe requirements relating to release time that would apply to all of the public employers and employees subject to the acts described above and would generally repeal the provisions relating to release time in those acts. The bill would require these public employers to grant a reasonable number of employee representatives of the exclusive representative reasonable time off without loss of compensation or other benefits for specified activities. This requirement would apply to activities to investigate and process grievances or otherwise enforce a collective bargaining agreement or memorandum of understanding; to meet and confer or meet and negotiate with the public employer on matters within the scope of representation, including preparation for the activities specified in these provisions; to testify or appear as the designated representative of the exclusive representative in conferences, hearings, or other proceedings before the Public Employment Relations Board or similar bodies, as specified; to testify or appear as the designated representative of the exclusive representative before the governing body of the public employer, or a personnel, civil service, or merit commission, among others, and to serve as a representative of the exclusive representative for new employee orientations. The bill would require the exclusive representative to provide reasonable notice requesting an absence in this connection. The bill would specify that its provisions prescribe minimum release time rights and would prescribe requirements regarding the relation of its provisions to other labor agreements that address release time. The bill would prohibit the Public Employment Relations Board from enforcing these provisions with regard to public transit workers that are not otherwise subject to the board's jurisdiction.
Existing law, the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-Vasconcellos Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A and B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission, and establishes eligibility requirements for awards under these programs for participating students attending qualifying institutions. Existing law specifies the amounts of the maximum Cal Grant A and B awards for students attending private nonprofit postsecondary institutions of higher education and private for-profit postsecondary educational institutions that are regionally accredited, as specified. Beginning with the 2020–21 award year, the maximum tuition award is either $9,084 or $8,056, depending upon whether the number of new unduplicated transfer students accepted by private nonprofit postsecondary educational institutions who have been given associate degree for transfer commitments, as defined, in the prior award year meet and exceed specified targets. This bill would change, in accordance with a prescribed formula, the maximum Cal Grant award for tuition for a new recipient attending an independent institution of higher education, commencing with the 2020–21 award year. This bill would provide that the award amount for a student attending an independent institution of higher education may be determined in the annual Budget Act if the independent institutions of higher education, as a group, do not accept the specified number of transfer students who have been given associate degree for transfer commitments.
Existing law specifies the contents of a voter notification regarding party preference, printed vote by mail ballot applications, the uniform electronic vote by mail ballot application prepared and distributed by the Secretary of State, and applications for permanent vote by mail status. The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires counties in the state that have single language minority groups that meet specified literacy and English language proficiency criteria to provide registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or information relating to the electoral process in the languages of those minority groups as well as in English. This bill would require the application materials described above to allow the applicant to specify the preferred language in which the applicant would like to receive future election materials. The bill would require the voter notification described above to include a statement of the voter's language preference. The bill would require the county elections official to send with the voter notification information regarding the languages in which a voter in the county may receive election materials and instructions on how the voter may change the voter's language preference. By increasing the duties of county elections officials, the 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.
This measure would recognize September 2020 as Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month and encourage the Legislature to appropriate funds for research, treatment, and monitoring of sickle cell disease, and for related education and outreach.
Existing law, including, but not limited to, property tax law, the Sales and Use Tax Law, the Personal Income Tax Law, the Corporation Tax Law, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Law, the law governing the taxation of insurers, the Use Fuel Tax Law, and the Diesel Fuel Tax Law provide for tax expenditures, including exemptions, deductions, exclusions, and credits against the taxes imposed by those laws. This bill would establish in state government the California Tax Expenditure Review Board as an independent advisory body to comprehensively assess major tax expenditures, as defined, and make recommendations to the Legislature. The bill would require the board to be composed of 5 members, as specified, who would serve without compensation. This bill would request the University of California, through a new or existing research center, to perform a comprehensive assessment of the major tax expenditures and to present a comprehensive, peer-reviewed assessment to the board by July 1, 2021, at a public hearing of the board. The bill, to the extent that the University of California needs access to taxpayer data and information, would require the Franchise Tax Board or the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to ensure relevant taxpayer data is made available and ensure appropriate levels of data security and protections are in place for transferred and sensitive data. This bill would set forth the scope of the comprehensive assessment, which would include certain specified information, including a brief description of the beneficiaries of the tax expenditure, and would require the board to post the comprehensive assessment on its internet website after receipt. The bill would require the board to make recommendations to the Legislature regarding the major tax expenditures, and to provide a report to the Legislature that compiles all of its recommendations regarding those tax expenditures, after a vote of the members of the board, by January 1, 2022, as specified. The bill would also require the board to submit the report to the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance, the Assembly Committee on Budget, and the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation, and post it on its internet website. The bill would require the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance and the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation, after receipt of the report by the Legislature, to hold a joint public hearing on the report by August 15 of the second year of the legislative session.
This measure would urge specified state departments and the Attorney General to use their authority to ensure that health care service plans and health insurers subject to their authority comply with the federal Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.
Existing law regulates arbitrations conducted pursuant to an agreement, as specified. (1) In an employment or consumer arbitration in which the drafting party, as defined, is required to pay certain fees and costs before the arbitration can proceed, this bill would provide that if the fees or costs to initiate an arbitration proceeding are not paid within 30 days after the due date, the drafting party is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration, and waives its right to compel arbitration. If the drafting party materially breaches the arbitration agreement and is in default of the arbitration, the bill would authorize the employee or consumer to either withdraw the claim from arbitration and proceed in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, or to compel arbitration in which the drafting party is required to pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs related to the arbitration. If the employee or consumer proceeds with an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, the bill would provide that the statute of limitations with regard to all claims brought or that relate back to any claim brought in arbitration are tolled, as specified. The bill would further require the court to impose a monetary sanction on the drafting party who materially breaches an arbitration agreement, and would authorize the court to impose other sanctions, as specified. (2) In an employment or consumer arbitration in which the drafting party, as defined, is required to pay certain fees and costs during the pendency of an arbitration proceeding, this bill would provide that if those fees or costs are not paid within 30 days after the due date, the drafting party is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration, and waives its right to compel arbitration. If the drafting party materially breaches the arbitration agreement and is in default of the arbitration, the bill would authorize the employee or consumer to unilaterally withdraw the claim from arbitration and proceed in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, or to compel arbitration, as specified. If the employee or consumer proceeds with an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, the bill would provide that the statute of limitations with regard to all claims brought or that relate back to any claim brought in arbitration are tolled, as specified. The bill would require the court to impose a monetary sanction on the drafting party who materially breaches an arbitration agreement, and would authorize the court to impose other sanctions, as specified. If the employee or consumer compels arbitration, the bill would require the arbitrator to impose appropriate sanctions on the drafting party, including monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating sanctions. (3) Existing law requires a private arbitration company involved in consumer arbitration cases to collect and make certain information regarding those cases available to the public, as specified. This bill would additionally require a private arbitration company to collect and report demographic data in the aggregate relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation of all arbitrators, as specified. (4) The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations, and would provide that if any provision or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities. MAUCRSA generally divides responsibility for the state licensure and regulation of commercial cannabis activity among the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the State Department of Public Health. MAUCRSA requires a licensing authority to establish a scale of application, licensing, and renewal fees, based upon the cost of enforcing MAUCRSA, as specified. Existing law, the California Cannabis Equity Act of 2018, authorizes the Bureau of Cannabis Control, upon request by a local jurisdiction, to provide technical assistance, as defined, to a local equity program that helps local equity applicants or local equity licensees. Existing law, upon appropriation of funds by the Legislature, authorizes an eligible local jurisdiction to submit an application to the bureau for a grant to assist local equity applicants and local equity licensees through that local jurisdiction's equity program. Existing law requires an eligible local jurisdiction that receives grant funds pursuant to these provisions to use the grant funds to provide prescribed assistance to local equity applicants and licensees within that jurisdiction. Existing law authorizes a local equity program to include tiered fees or fee waivers for cannabis-related permits and licenses. This bill would require a state licensing authority, on or before January 1, 2021, to develop and implement a program to provide a deferral or waiver for an application fee, a licensing fee, or a renewal fee for a needs-based applicant or needs-based licensee. The bill would require at least 60% of the total dollar amount of deferrals of fees pursuant to the program to be allocated to the deferral of fees for local equity applicants and licensees, and would require at least 60% of the total dollar amount of waivers of fees pursuant to the program to be allocated to the waiver of fees for local equity applicants and licensees. The bill would authorize a licensing authority to adopt emergency regulations to implement these provisions. The bill would condition its operation upon an appropriation in the annual Budget Act or another statute for purposes of this provision. The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, an initiative measure, authorizes the Legislature to amend the act to further the purposes and intent of the act with a 23 vote of the membership of both houses of the Legislature, except as provided. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act.