(1) Existing law authorizes a person who was born in this state and who has undergone clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition to obtain a new birth certificate from the State Registrar. This bill would enact the Gender Recognition Act. For purposes of obtaining a new birth certificate under the provisions above, the bill would delete the requirement that an applicant have undergone any treatment, and instead would authorize a person to submit to the State Registrar an application to change gender on the birth certificate and an affidavit attesting, under penalty of perjury, that the request for a change of gender is to conform the person's legal gender to the person's gender identity and not for any fraudulent purpose. By requiring the affidavit to be attested to under penalty of perjury, the bill would create a crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the change of gender on a new birth certificate to be female, male, or nonbinary. (2) Existing law authorizes a person who has undergone clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition to petition for a court judgment recognizing the change of gender, and to petition for a court order conforming the person's name to the person's gender identity. Existing law provides specific procedures to seek these orders and judgments, either separately or in combination. This bill, commencing on September 1, 2018, would delete the requirement that a person have undergone any treatment to seek a court judgment to recognize a change of gender and instead would authorize the petitioner to attest, under penalty of perjury, that the request is to conform the person's legal gender to the person's gender identity and not for any fraudulent purpose. By requiring the affidavit to be attested to under penalty of perjury, the bill would create a crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a change of gender in the court judgment to female, male, or nonbinary. The bill would provide modified procedures to obtain a court order for a change of name to conform to the petitioner's gender identity and a court judgment to recognize a change in the petitioner's gender. The bill would provide a separate procedure for a person under 18 years of age to petition for a court judgment to recognize a change of gender to female, male, or nonbinary. (3) Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue a driver's license to an applicant when the department determines that the applicant is lawfully entitled to a license, and requires the license to contain, among other things, a brief description and engraved picture or photograph of the licensee for the purpose of identification. Existing law requires the application for an original driver's license or renewal of a driver's license to contain specified information, as provided by the applicant. Existing law also authorizes the department to issue identification cards and requires an identification card to adequately describe the applicant. Existing law requires the department, upon issuance of a new identification card or renewal of an identification card, to provide information regarding organ and tissue donation, including an enrollment form for the California Organ and Tissue Donor Registry that requires an applicant to mark his or her sex. This bill, on January 1, 2019, would require an applicant for an original driver's license or renewal of a driver's license to choose a gender category of female, male, or nonbinary, as specified, and would require the department to adopt regulations to provide a process for an amendment to a gender category under these provisions. The bill would also require the enrollment form for the California Organ and Tissue Donor Registry to instead require an applicant to mark his or her gender. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations in support of its provisions. (4) 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 provides that the Department of Transportation has full possession and control of the state highway system, including associated property. Existing law authorizes the department to lease certain property, including the area above or below a state highway, and certain property held for future highway purposes, to public agencies under specified terms and conditions, including specific provisions governing leases of airspace and other property in the City and County of San Francisco for purposes of an emergency shelter or feeding program, at a lease cost of $1 per month and payment of an administrative fee not to exceed $500 per year. This bill would revise the provisions governing leases of department property in the City and County of San Francisco under these financial terms to require that a lease be offered on a right of first refusal by the department to the city and county or a political subdivision of the city and county and would also authorize leases of property for park, recreational, or open-space purposes, subject to certain additional terms and conditions, including a requirement for the department to lease property located within a priority development area, as defined, to the city and county for up to 10 parcels, at a specified below market value lease amount, and a requirement, applicable to all leases, for the lessee to be responsible for all associated maintenance costs. The bill would provide for the lease to authorize the lessee to subsidize its maintenance costs through a limited revenue generation model, with any revenues generated above the maintenance costs to be shared with the state, as specified. The bill would require the city and county or a political subdivision of the city and county, in consultation with the department, to follow all applicable health, environmental, safety, design, and engineering standards.
Under existing law, programs have been established pursuant to bond acts for, among other things, the development and enhancement of state and local parks and recreational facilities. Existing law, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, approved by the voters as Proposition 1 at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election, authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $7,545,000,000 to finance a water quality, supply, and infrastructure improvement program. Existing law, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 84 at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,388,000,000 for the purposes of financing safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, natural resource protection, and park improvements. Existing law, the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002, approved by the voters as Proposition 40 at the March 5, 2002, statewide primary election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $2,600,000,000, for the purpose of financing a program for the acquisition, development, restoration, protection, rehabilitation, stabilization, reconstruction, preservation, and interpretation of park, coastal, agricultural land, air, and historical resources. This bill would enact the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in an amount of $4,000,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a drought, water, parks, climate, coastal protection, and outdoor access for all program. The bill, upon voter approval, would reallocate $100,000,000 of the unissued bonds authorized for the purposes of Propositions 1, 40, and 84 to finance the purposes of a drought, water, parks, climate, coastal protection, and outdoor access for all program. The bill would provide for the submission of these provisions to the voters at the June 5, 2018, statewide primary direct election. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
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.
Existing law authorizes various local governmental entities, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy transactions and use taxes for general purposes in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in the county not exceed 2%. This bill would authorize the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, by a resolution approved by 23 of the board and with the approval of specified entities, to levy a tax pursuant to the Transactions and Use Tax Law at a rate not to exceed 0.125%, with net revenues from the tax to be used by the board for operating and capital purposes of the Caltrain rail service, subject to 23 voter approval of a regional measure submitted by the board to voters of the Counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. The bill would authorize the board to exceed the 2% limit described above to impose the retail transactions and use tax. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara.
(1) Existing law creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as a regional agency in the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law creates the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) as a separate entity governed by the same governing board as MTC and makes BATA responsible for the programming, administration, and allocation of toll revenues from the state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area. Existing law authorizes BATA to increase the toll rates for certain purposes, including to meet its bond obligations, provide funding for certain costs associated with the bay area state-owned toll bridges, including for the seismic retrofit of those bridges, and provide funding to meet the requirements of certain voter-approved regional measures. Existing law provided for submission of 2 regional measures to the voters of 7 bay area counties in 1988 and 2004 relative to specified increases in bridge auto tolls on the bay area state-owned toll bridges, subject to approval by a majority of the voters. This bill would require the City and County of San Francisco and the other 8 counties in the San Francisco Bay area to conduct a special election, to be known as Regional Measure 3, on a proposed increase in the amount of the toll rate charged on the state-owned toll bridges in that area to be used for specified projects and programs. The bill would require BATA to select the amount of the proposed increase, not to exceed $3, to be placed on the ballot for voter approval. If approved by the voters, the bill would authorize BATA, beginning 6 months after the election approving the toll increase, to phase in the toll increase over a period of time and to adjust the toll increase for inflation after the toll increase is phased in completely. The bill would specify that, except for the inflation adjustment, providing funding to meet the requirements of voter approved regional measures, and as otherwise specified in statute, the toll increase adopted pursuant to the results of this election may not be changed without the statutory authorization of the Legislature. By requiring this election, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require BATA to reimburse from toll revenues, as specified, the counties and the City and County of San Francisco for the cost of submitting the measure to the voters. This bill would require BATA to establish an independent oversight committee within 6 months of the effective date of the Regional Measure 3 toll increase with a specified membership, to ensure the toll revenues generated by the toll increase are expended consistent with a specified expenditure plan. The bill would require BATA to submit an annual report to the Legislature on the status of the projects and programs funded by the toll increase. (2) Existing law authorizes BATA to vary the toll structure on each of the bay area state-owned toll bridges and to provide discounts for vehicles classified by BATA as high-occupancy vehicles. This bill would additionally authorize BATA to provide discounts for vehicles that pay for tolls electronically or through other non-cash methods and to charge differential rates based on the chosen method. This bill, with respect to the Regional Measure 3 toll increase, would require BATA to provide a 50% discount on the amount of that toll increase on the 2nd bridge crossing for those commuters using a two-axle vehicle, who pay tolls electronically or through other noncash methods and who cross 2 bridges during commute hours, as specified. Existing law, if BATA establishes high-occupancy vehicle lane fee discounts or access for vehicles classified by BATA as high-occupancy vehicles for any bridge, requires BATA to collaborate with the Department of Transportation to reach agreement on how the occupancy requirements shall apply on each segment of highway that connects with that bridge. This bill would instead require BATA to establish those occupancy requirements in consultation with the department. (3) Existing law establishes the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) , governed by a board of directors, with specified powers and duties relative to the construction and operation of a rapid transit system. This bill would create the Independent Office of the BART Inspector General within BART. The bill would provide for the board of directors to nominate 3 persons to the Governor and for the Governor to appoint one of those nominees to serve as the Inspector General for a 4-year term. The bill would require the Inspector General to be removed from office by the board of directors, subject to the approval of the Governor, under certain circumstances. The bill would specify the duties and responsibilities of the Inspector General and would require the Inspector General to submit an annual report to the board of directors and the Legislature. The bill would provide for the office to receive $1,000,000 from an allocation of bridge toll revenue from BATA and, in the second and subsequent years of operation of the office, would authorize BATA to increase that amount, as specified. The bill would make these provisions operative upon an affirmative vote to increase tolls on the bay area state-owned toll bridges pursuant to Regional Measure 3 or related provisions. (4) Existing law authorizes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to conduct, administer, and operate a value pricing high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane program on 2 corridors included in the high-occupancy vehicle lane system in Santa Clara County. Existing law authorizes a HOT lane established as part of this program on State Highway Route 101 to extend into the County of San Mateo as far as the high-occupancy lane in the County of San Mateo existed as of January 1, 2011, subject to agreement of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. This bill would delete the authorization for a HOT lane to extend into the specified portion of San Mateo County as part of a value pricing program established on 2 corridors in Santa Clara County. The bill would instead authorize VTA to specifically conduct, administer, and operate a value pricing high-occupancy toll lane program on State Highway Route 101 in San Mateo County in coordination with the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, as prescribed. (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, 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, 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.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act generally prohibits a manufacturer, winegrower, distiller, bottler, or wholesaler, among other licensees, or agents of these licensees, from paying a retailer for advertising. The act creates a variety of exceptions from this prohibition, including permitting specified licensees to purchase advertising space and time from, or on behalf of, an on-sale retail licensee that is an owner, manager, or major tenant of certain stadiums, parks, entertainment complexes, and arenas, subject to specified conditions. Existing law requires the purchase of advertising space or time in this context to be conducted pursuant to a written contract with the on-sale licensee, with a specified exception. Existing law makes it a crime for an on-sale licensee to coerce certain licensees to purchase advertising space or time, as specified. This bill would expand the exceptions described above to allow beer manufacturers, winegrowers, distilled spirits rectifiers, distilled spirits manufacturers, or distilled spirits manufacturer's agents to purchase advertising space and time, in connection with described events, from, or on behalf of, on-sale retail licensees, as described above, at specified facilities located in the City and County of San Francisco. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco. 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 25503.6 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by SB 582 and AB 1724 that would become operative if this bill and SB 582, this bill and AB 1724, or all 3 bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last.