Rep. Liz Ortega

Existing law entitles state employees to a paid holiday on specific days, including the 3rd Monday in February, except as specified. Existing law, in addition, authorizes state employees to elect to use 8 hours of vacation, annual leave, compensating time off, or personal holiday credit corresponding with specific dates, including the 4th Friday in September, known as "Native American Day," as specified. This bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, entitle state employees to a holiday on the 4th Friday in September, known as "Native American Day," as specified, in lieu of the above-described election. The bill would authorize any state bargaining unit to negotiate for a paid holiday on Native American Day, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 19853 and 19853.1 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2017 and SB 1394 to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

This measure would call on Congress to enact legislation that restores and strengthens the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and it would call on the President to sign the legislation.

(1) Existing law establishes the Department of Industrial Relations, which includes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Existing law requires the division to investigate the causes of any employment accident that is fatal to one or more employees or that results in a serious injury, illness, or exposure, except as specified. Existing law requires the chief of the division and all qualified inspectors and investigators authorized by the chief to have free access to any place of employment to investigate and inspect and sets forth various other duties related to investigation and inspection, as specified. This bill would make it a misdemeanor to willfully resist, prevent, impede, or interfere with the chief or their authorized representative in the performance of the above-described duties or to willfully violate an order of the court relating to those duties. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law makes it a public offense for any employer or any employee having direction, management, control, or custody of any employment, place of employment, or of any other employee who willfully violates any occupational safety or health standard, order, special order, if that violation caused death or permanent or prolonged impairment to the body of an employee, as specified. This bill would additionally make it a public offense if that violation caused serious injury, illness, or exposure. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law makes the Bureau of Investigations within the Division of Occupational Safety and Health responsible for directing accident investigations involving violations of laws, standards, and orders in which there is a serious injury to 5 or more employees, death, or request for prosecution by a division representative. Existing law requires the bureau to review inspection reports involving a serious violation if there have been serious injuries to one to 4 employees or a serious exposure, and authorizes the bureau to investigate cases for the purpose of prosecution, as specified. Existing law requires the bureau to refer the results of investigations it is required to conduct to the appropriate prosecuting authority having jurisdiction for appropriate action unless it determines that there is legally insufficient evidence of a violation of the law. This bill would revise and recast these requirements to, among other things, additionally require the bureau to investigate any accident in which there is a serious injury, illness, or exposure for which the division issues a citation for a willful violation. The bill would require the bureau to establish written policies and procedures for reviewing cases and deciding whether to investigate or refer them for prosecution. The bill would also require the division to establish a routine or automated process for transmitting information to the bureau about incidents with serious injuries, illnesses, or exposures so that the bureau can review them. Existing law authorizes the department, upon the request of a county district attorney, to develop a protocol for the referral of cases that may involve criminal conduct to the appropriate prosecuting authority in lieu of or in cooperation with an investigation by the bureau. This bill would require the division to immediately notify the appropriate prosecuting authority upon learning of an accident in which there is a serious injury, illness, or exposure to 5 or more employees, death, or request for prosecution by a division representative. The bill would delete the above-described provisions regarding developing a protocol and would instead authorize the bureau, upon request of an appropriate prosecuting authority, to refer cases that may involve criminal conduct to the appropriate prosecuting authority, as specified. The bill would require the bureau and the division, in cases accepted for investigation, to cooperate with the prosecuting authority. Existing law requires the bureau to submit an annual report to the division on its activities. This bill would additionally require the report to be submitted to the Legislature and to include information relating to certain cases involving a fatality that are referred by the bureau to the appropriate prosecuting authority, as specified. The bill would make the specifics of that information confidential. (3) Existing law requires all information reported to or otherwise obtained by the Chief of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health or representatives of the chief in connection with any inspection or proceeding of the division that contains or that might reveal a trade secret to be considered confidential, except that this information may be disclosed to other officers or employees of the division concerned with carrying out the purposes of the division or when relevant in any proceeding of the division, as specified. This bill would revise the above-described exception to also permit this information to be disclosed to law enforcement officers or prosecutors in any law enforcement investigation or prosecution. Existing law requires the responding agency, whenever a state, county, or local fire or police agency is called to an accident involving an employee covered by the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 in which a serious injury or illness, or death occurs, to immediately notify the nearest division office. Existing law then requires the division to immediately notify the appropriate prosecuting authority of the accident. This bill would expand this requirement to include an accident in which a serious exposure occurs. The bill would also require the responding agency to immediately notify the district attorney's office in the county where the accident occurred. The bill would additionally require the division to immediately notify the bureau, and the district attorney's office or other appropriate prosecuting authority, of the accident, whether the division received notification by the responding agency, the employer, or by other means. The bill would make other related and conforming changes to those provisions. (4) 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. (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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with enforcement of various labor laws, including investigation of employee complaints. This bill would declare it is the policy of the state that a worker providing direct patient care be free to use their professional judgment to make assessments and decisions within their scope of practice as appropriate for their patients. The bill would prohibit an employer from retaliating or discriminating against a worker providing patient care, as specified. The bill would authorize a worker who is subject to retaliation or discrimination in violation of these provisions to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner against an employer. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce these provisions, as specified. Existing law provides that everyone is responsible not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person. Existing law prohibits a defendant who developed, modified, or used artificial intelligence, as defined, from asserting a defense that the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm to the plaintiff. This bill would prohibit a defendant who developed, modified, selected, or deployed a clinical decision support system that is alleged to have harmed the plaintiff from asserting a defense that the failure of a licensed health care professional or other health care worker to override an output of the clinical decision support system is a superseding cause severing the defendant's liability for the alleged harm.

Existing law requires each law enforcement agency, on or before January 1, 2021, to maintain a policy that provides a minimum standard on the use of force. Existing law requires that the policy include, among other things, training standards and requirements relating to demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the law enforcement agency's use of force policy by officers, investigators, and supervisors. Existing law prohibits a law enforcement agency from authorizing the use of a carotid restraint or choke hold by any peace officer employed by that agency. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit a law enforcement agency, including a federal law enforcement agency, from using a wearable electroshock device within the State of California. The bill would also prohibit a law enforcement agency from using state funds to purchase a wearable electroshock device. The bill would require a law enforcement agency to update their use of force policies to prohibit the use of a wearable electroshock device. By increasing the duties on local law enforcement, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Division of Law Enforcement within the Department of Justice to conduct a study on the safety and community impacts of wearable electroshock devices and provide recommendations for appropriate standards and safeguards for their use, and would require the department to report to the Legislature on the findings and recommendations of the study on or before January 1, 2029. 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 contains numerous provisions governing the qualifications, standards, and training of peace officers. Existing law specifies circumstances that disqualify a person from holding office or being employed as a peace officer, including, among other things, having been convicted of a felony. This bill, the GTFO Act, would, commencing January 1, 2028, disqualify from being a peace officer a person previously employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor and personally engaged in immigration enforcement, as defined, except as specified. Existing law requires each class of public officers or employees declared by law to be peace officers to meet specified minimum standards, including that they be 18 years of age or older, be fingerprinted for purposes of search of local, state, and national fingerprint files to disclose a criminal record, and be of good moral character, as determined by a thorough background investigation. This bill would, for purposes of those background investigations, authorize a hiring agency to consider news articles, verified social media posts, filings of civil complaints, and other verified sources. This bill, for purposes of an applicant who was previously employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor and personally engaged in immigration enforcement, would require the hiring agency to complete the background investigation before the candidate participates in a Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) basic course. The bill would require the hiring agency to review the background investigation and determine if the individual is suitable to enter the POST basic course subject to certain suitability standards adopted by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. This bill would require every applicant seeking appointment as a peace officer or enrollment in a POST basic course to submit to the hiring agency a declaration submitted under penalty of perjury that states whether the applicant has, at any time been employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor that personally engaged in immigration enforcement, as specified. By requiring this statement to be made under penalty of perjury, the bill would expand the scope of a crime and impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, the State Civil Service Act, requires that the employment procedures of the Department of Human Resources (CalHR) and of each state agency conform to the federal and state laws governing employment practices, including the use of employment forms. Existing law requires employment forms used by a state agency to require a person applying for employment to disclose whether the person has entered into an agreement with the state regarding any previous employment with the state that prohibits the person from seeking or accepting any subsequent employment with the state. This bill would additionally require the above-described employment forms to require a person applying for employment to disclose whether the person has been employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor that personally engaged in immigration enforcement, as defined. Existing law authorizes CalHR or a designated appointing power to refuse to examine or, after examination, to refuse to declare as eligible, or to withhold or withdraw from certification, prior to appointment, anyone who meets certain criteria, such as a person who has misrepresented themselves during the application process. This bill would add to these criteria a person who was previously employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor and personally engaged in immigration enforcement, as defined, except as specified. Existing law makes a person ineligible to hold office or employment of any kind with the state, or any county, city, district, or other political or governmental unit of the state, if the person has by oath bound themselves to support, maintain, or further the military or political activities or policies of a foreign government, as specified, or to obey the orders or directions of any foreign government or its officials. This bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would make a person ineligible to hold public employment, including employment with a city, county, district, or any other public agency of the state, because the person was previously employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor and personally engaged in immigration enforcement, as defined, except as specified. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to establish a certification program for peace officers. Existing law requires, for each applicant for admission to a basic course of training certified by the commission that includes the carrying and use of firearms, who is not sponsored by a local or other law enforcement agency or is not a peace officer employed by a state or local agency, department, or district, to submit written certification from the Department of Justice that the applicant is eligible to possess, receive, own, and purchase a firearm pursuant to state and federal law. This bill would, for purposes of an applicant for the basic course who was previously employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor and personally engaged in immigration enforcement, require the commission to deny suitability for enrollment in the basic course, unless the commission receives notice from the hiring agency granting the applicant's suitability, as specified. The bill, by January 1, 2028, would require the commission to adopt, by regulation, a definition of "suitability," as specified. Existing law requires any background investigation of a candidate for a peace officer position to include an inquiry into whether the candidate has engaged or is engaging in membership in a hate group. This bill would require the background investigation to include an inquiry into whether the candidate has engaged in immigration enforcement. By increasing the duties of local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make the provisions of the act severable. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1029 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1627 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1627 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 13510.8 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 2337 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2337 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.

Existing law, the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, prohibits an operator of an addictive internet-based service or application from providing an addictive feed, as defined, to a user unless the operator does not have actual knowledge that the user is a minor, as specified, or the operator has obtained verifiable parental consent to provide an addictive feed to the user who is a minor. Existing law, the Digital Age Assurance Act, beginning January 1, 2027, requires a person who owns, maintains, or controls a software application, as defined, to request age bracket data sent by a real-time secure application programming interface or operating system with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched. This bill would prohibit a covered platform, as defined, from providing an addictive feature, as defined, to a user who is under 16 years of age and would require a covered platform to implement reasonable measures to ensure that users under 16 years of age are not offered or provided any addictive feature on the covered platform. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General to adopt regulations to implement and enforce the bill in order to further the purpose of protecting minors online, including by altering the scope of "covered platform" if the Attorney General determines that doing so is necessary to ensure that "covered platform" applies to internet websites, online services, online applications, or mobile applications that make addictive features, as defined, available to users under 16 years of age. This bill would impose a civil penalty upon a noncompliant platform and would require its provisions to be enforced by a civil action brought only by the Attorney General or a local public prosecutor, as specified. This bill would also establish the e-Safety Advisory Commission within the Department of Justice as an independent advisory body that is only for administrative purposes to advise state government on certain matters related to online safety and would require the commission to, on or before January 1 of each year, report to the Legislature and the Governor on, among other things, its activities under the bill.

Existing law requires, until July 1, 2027, the Attorney General, or their designee, to engage in reviews of county, local, or private locked detention facilities in which noncitizens are being housed or detained for purposes of civil immigration proceedings in California, and, on or before March 1, 2019, to conduct a review of these facilities, as specified, including a review of the circumstances of apprehension and transfer. Existing law also requires the Department of Justice to provide, during the budget process, updates and information to the Legislature and the Governor, concerning the reviews, as provided and pursuant to a specified date. Existing law requires the comprehensive report to be completed by March 1, 2019, and to be posted on the Attorney General's internet website and made available to the public, as provided. Existing law makes these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2027, and repeals those provisions January 1, 2028. This bill would delete all dates specified above, including inoperative and repeal provisions, thereby indefinitely extending those provisions, and would delete the requirement for the review to include an individual's circumstances of apprehension and transfer. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes.

Existing law, the Transit District Law, establishes the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District with various powers and duties relative to transportation projects and services and the operation of public transit in the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa. Existing law establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in state government as a means of resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of specified public employers and employees under various acts regulating collective bargaining, including the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. Existing law includes within PERB's jurisdiction the resolution of disputes alleging violation of rules and regulations adopted by a public agency, as defined, concerning unit determinations, representations, recognition, and elections, as specified. Existing law authorizes PERB to adopt rules and regulations to carry out its purposes, as provided. This bill would vest PERB with jurisdiction to enforce certain provisions related to the district's employees over charges of unfair practices for represented district employees, subject to a selection by an exclusive representative. The bill, in the case of such a selection, would give PERB jurisdiction over the initial determination as to whether those charges are justified and, if so, the appropriate remedy, subject to certain restrictions. The bill would require that PERB's regulations apply, as appropriate, to the district, and authorize PERB to make additional emergency regulations applicable to the district. The bill would require the district to give reasonable written notice to an exclusive representative of its employees of its intent to make any change to matters within the scope of representation of the employees represented by the exclusive representative, as specified. The bill would make it unlawful for the district or an employee organization to engage in certain acts, including imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on employees, refusing to meet and negotiate in good faith, or refusing to participate in good faith in mutually agreed upon impasse procedures. This bill would authorize any charging party, respondent, or intervenor aggrieved by a final decision or order of PERB in an unfair practice case, except a decision of PERB not to issue a complaint in such a case, to petition for a writ of extraordinary relief from that decision or order, as specified. The bill, if the time to petition for extraordinary relief from a PERB decision or order has expired, would authorize PERB to seek enforcement of any final decision or order in a district court of appeal or superior court having jurisdiction over the county where the events giving rise to the decision or order occurred, as specified. By imposing new duties on the district, the 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 district. 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, commonly known as the Cartwright Act, identifies certain acts as unlawful restraints of trade and unlawful trusts and prescribes provisions for its enforcement. Chapter 338 of the Statutes of 2025 provides that in a complaint for any violation of the Cartwright Act, it is sufficient to contain factual allegations demonstrating that the existence of a contract, combination in the form of a trust, or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce is plausible. Chapter 338 of the Statutes of 2025 also provides that a complaint for any violation of the Cartwright Act is not required to allege facts tending to exclude the possibility of independent action. Existing case law, In re Cipro Cases I & II (2015) 61 Cal.4th 116, establishes a rule of reason analysis for certain claims under the Cartwright Act, which, among other things, determines whether an act was made for the purpose of avoiding competition and whether the anticompetitive effects of the agreement outweigh any procompetitive justifications. This bill would prohibit any person from monopolizing or monopsonizing any part of trade or commerce, as provided. The bill would require courts to use the analytical framework and guidance provided in In re Cipro Cases I & II. The bill would require a plaintiff bringing an action under its provisions to allege, and prove at trial, substantial market power through either direct or indirect evidence. The bill would exempt a small business, as defined, from these provisions. The bill would provide that its provisions do not prevent, limit, or prohibit certain conduct and legal instruments, including exclusive franchises granted and supervised by a local, state, or federal governmental agency. This bill would require any action brought pursuant to these provisions to be initiated only by the Attorney General or a district attorney, and would, with certain exceptions, preclude an alleged violation under its provisions from serving as a predicate violation under the Unfair Competition Law. The bill would require an action brought pursuant to these provisions to be filed as a "complex case" pursuant to provisions of law requiring the assessment of additional court fees, as specified. The bill would also make related findings and declarations. The bill would require courts to liberally interpret California's antitrust laws to best promote free and fair competition, as provided. Because the bill would expand the scope of activities prohibited by the Cartwright Act, the violation of which is punishable as a crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.