Existing law generally prohibits an employer from paying an employee at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Existing law establishes exceptions to that prohibition, including, among others, where the payment is made based on any bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer or other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person to pay or cause to be paid to any employee a wage less than the rate paid to an employee of the opposite sex as required by these provisions, or who reduces the wages of any employee in order to comply with these provisions. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to refuse or neglect to comply with the above provisions of law. This bill would specify that prior salary cannot, by itself, justify any disparity in compensation under the bona fide factor exception to the above prohibition. By changing the definition of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 1197.5 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 1063 that would become operative only if SB 1063 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Sponsored bills
Under existing law, when a person employed in a position requiring certification qualifications exhausts all available sick leave, as specified, and continues to be absent from his or her duties on account of illness or accident for an additional period of up to 5 school months, he or she, during that additional period, receives the difference between his or her salary and the sum that is actually paid a substitute employee employed to fill his or her position during his or her absence or, if no substitute employee was employed, the amount that would have been paid to the substitute had he or she been employed. Existing law also provides the differential pay benefit described above for up to 12 school weeks if the person employed in a position requiring certification qualifications is absent on account of maternity or paternity leave. Existing law provides that the 12-week period shall be reduced by any period of sick leave, including accumulated sick leave, taken during a period of maternity or paternity leave. Existing law prohibits a person employed in a position requiring certification qualifications on maternity or paternity leave pursuant to the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act from being denied access to differential pay while on that leave. This bill would additionally provide that if a school district maintains a rule that credits a person employed in a position requiring certification qualifications at least 100 working days of sick leave paid at no less than 50% of his or her regular salary, when he or she has exhausted all available sick leave, including all accumulated sick leave, and continues to be absent from his or her duties on account of parental leave, the person employed in a position requiring certification qualifications would be compensated at no less than 50% of his or her regular salary for the remaining portion of the 12-workweek period of parental leave. The bill would no longer require a person employed in a position requiring certification qualifications to have 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, as required by the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, in order to take parental leave pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require that parental leave taken pursuant to these provisions run concurrently with parental leave taken pursuant to the act, and that the aggregate amount of parental leave taken pursuant to either these provisions or under the act not exceed 12 workweeks in a 12-month period. Under existing law, when a classified school employee in certain school districts and community college districts exhausts all available sick leave, as specified, and continues to be absent from his or her duties on account of illness or accident for an additional period of up to 5 school months, the employee during that additional period receives the difference between his or her salary and the sum that is actually paid a substitute employee employed to fill his or her position during his or her absence. Under existing law, when a classified school employee in certain other school districts and community college districts exhausts all available sick leave, as specified, and continues to be absent from his or her duties on account of illness or accident for an additional period of up to 5 school months, the employee during that additional period receives at least 50% of the employee's regular salary. This bill would additionally provide the differential pay benefits described above for up to 12 workweeks if the classified school employee is absent on account of parental leave, as defined. The bill would provide that the 12-workweek period shall be reduced by any period of sick leave, including accumulated sick leave, taken during a period of parental leave. The bill would no longer require a classified employee to have 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, as required by the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, in order to take parental leave pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require that parental leave taken pursuant to these provisions run concurrently with parental leave taken pursuant to the act, and that the aggregate amount of parental leave taken pursuant to either these provisions or under the act not exceed 12 workweeks in a 12-month period. Under existing law, when a person employed in an academic position in a community college district exhausts all available sick leave, as specified, and continues to be absent from his or her duties on account of illness or accident for an additional period of up to 5 school months, the person employed in an academic position during that additional period receives the difference between his or her salary and the sum that is actually paid a temporary employee employed to fill his or her position during his or her absence or, if no temporary employee was employed, the amount that would have been paid to the temporary employee had he or she been employed. This bill would additionally provide the differential pay benefit described above for up to 12 workweeks if the person employed in an academic position is absent on account of parental leave, as defined, as specified. The bill would provide that the 12-workweek period shall be reduced by any period of sick leave, including accumulated sick leave, taken during a period of parental leave. The bill would additionally provide that if a community college district maintains a rule that credits a person employed in an academic position at least 100 working days of sick leave paid at no less than 50% of the employee's regular salary, when an employee has exhausted all available sick leave, including all accumulated sick leave, and continues to be absent from his or her duties on account of parental leave, the employee would be compensated at no less than 50% of the employee's regular salary for the remaining portion of the 12-workweek period of parental leave. The bill would no longer require a person employed in an academic position to have 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, as required by the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, in order to take parental leave pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require that parental leave taken pursuant to these provisions run concurrently with parental leave taken pursuant to the act, and that the aggregate amount of parental leave taken pursuant to either these provisions or under the act not exceed 12 workweeks in a 12-month period.
Existing law prohibits an employer from refusing to allow a female employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take a leave for a reasonable time of up to 4 months before returning to work. Existing law also prohibits an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes that leave, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from refusing, as specified, to allow an employee with more than 12 months of service with the employer, and who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, to take up to 6 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of the child's birth, adoption, or foster care placement. The bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes this leave. The provisions of the bill would become operative on January 1, 2018.
Existing law prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, unless the employer demonstrates that specific, reasonably applied factors account for the entire wage differential. Existing law authorizes an employee paid lesser wages in violation of this prohibition to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and authorizes the employee, the division, or the Department of Industrial Relations to commence a civil action for the wages the employee was deprived of because of the violation, interest on those wages, and liquidated damages. Under existing law, an employer or other person who violates or causes a violation of that prohibition, or who reduces the wages of any employee in order to comply with that prohibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would also prohibit an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of another race or ethnicity for substantially similar work, as specified above. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 1197.5 of the Labor Code proposed by AB 1676 that would become operative only if AB 1676 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law prohibits a court from granting probation or suspending the execution or imposition of a sentence if a person is convicted of violating specified provisions of law, including rape by force, pandering, aggravated sexual assault of a child, and others. This bill would prohibit a court from granting probation or suspending the execution or imposition of a sentence if a person is convicted of rape, sodomy, penetration with a foreign object, or oral copulation if the victim was either unconscious or incapable of giving consent due to intoxication.
Existing law establishes in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) to fund specified local programs related to corrections. Existing law requires that 50% of the moneys received into the county SLESA be allocated to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county or city and county, and approved by the Board of State and Community Corrections (board) . Existing law requires the juvenile justice plans to include specified assessments of services and strategies to assist at-risk juveniles. This bill would recast those requirements to also include, among other things, a description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded by the county SLESA. The bill would delete the requirement that the board review the plan, and would instead require annual review and updating of the plan by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in a format specified by the board, and annual reports by the county or city and county to the county board of supervisors and to the board on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded by the county SLESA and expenditures for those purposes. The bill would require the board to compile those local reports summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county and to report that data annually to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would require the board to post on its Internet Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements from the local reports and to post the annual report. The bill would authorize the local reports and the annual report to be consolidated with certain reports pertaining to the Youthful Offender Block Grant program. By imposing additional duties on local entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law establishes, within the board, the California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group, as provided. Existing law requires the working group to, among other things, analyze the capacities and limitations of the data systems and networks used to collect and report state and local juvenile caseload and outcome data and prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified. This bill would require the board, by January 1, 2018, to develop recommendations on best practices and standardization for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity. Existing law requires each county to prepare and submit a Juvenile Justice Development Plan to the Corrections Standards Authority on or before May 1 of each year for approval. This bill would require the Juvenile Justice Development Plan to be submitted to the board instead of the Corrections Standards Authority and would recast the report requirements to include proposed programs, strategies, or system enhancements to be funded by the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund. The bill would require the Juvenile Justice Development Plan to be consolidated with the comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plans created by the local councils for funding from county SLESAs, as described above. The bill would require annual reports by counties regarding the use of the block grant funds be submitted to the board, instead of the authority. The bill would require annual reports to the Governor and the Legislature by the board regarding the programs, strategies, and system enhancements supported by the block grants, and posting of those annual reports on the board's Internet Web site. The bill would make additional conforming changes. By imposing additional reporting duties on local government entities, this bill would create 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.
Existing law establishes various programs, including, among others, the Emergency Housing and Assistance Program, to provide assistance to homeless persons. This bill would require a state agency or department that funds, implements, or administers a state program that provides housing or housing-related services to people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, except as specified, to revise or adopt guidelines and regulations to include enumerated Housing First policies. The bill would also establish the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council to oversee the implementation of the Housing First guidelines and regulations and, among other things, to identify resources, benefits, and services that can be accessed to prevent and end homelessness in California.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act contains various provisions regulating the application for, the issuance of, the suspension of, and the conditions imposed upon alcoholic beverage licenses by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. That act imposes additional regulations on the sale of alcoholic beverages and creates penalties for violations of those regulations. This bill would prohibit the department from issuing a license to manufacture, distribute, or sell powdered alcohol, as defined. This bill would prohibit the possession, purchase, sale, offer for sale, distribution, manufacture, or use of powdered alcohol and would make the specified violation of these provisions punishable as an infraction. This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. 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, the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, prohibits a person from introducing into interstate commerce any new drug unless the drug has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) . Existing law requires the sponsor of a new drug to submit to the FDA an investigational new drug application and to then conduct a series of clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug in human populations and submit the results to the FDA in a new drug application. Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, regulates the packaging, labeling, and advertising of drugs and devices and is administered by the State Department of Public Health. A violation of that law is a crime. The Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law prohibits, among other things, the sale, delivery, or giving away of a new drug or new device unless either the department has approved a new drug or device application for that new drug or new device and that approval has not been withdrawn, terminated, or suspended or the drug or device has been approved pursuant to specified provisions of federal law, including the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Medical Practice Act provides for the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons by the Medical Board of California and requires the board to take action against a licensee who is charged with unprofessional conduct. The Osteopathic Act provides for the licensure and regulation of osteopathic physicians and surgeons by the Osteopathic Medical Board of California and requires the board to enforce the Medical Practice Act with respect to its licensees. This bill would permit a manufacturer of an investigational drug, biological product, or device to make the product available to eligible patients with an immediately life-threatening disease or condition, as specified. The bill would authorize, but not require, a health benefit plan, as defined, to provide coverage for any investigational drug, biological product, or device made available pursuant to these provisions. The bill would prohibit the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California from taking any disciplinary action against the license of a physician based on the physician's recommendation to an eligible patient regarding, or prescription for, or treatment with, an investigational drug, biological product, or device if the recommendation or prescription is consistent with protocol approved by the physician's institutional review board or an accredited institutional review board, and would require the institutional review board to biannually report specified information to the State Department of Public Health, among others. The bill would prohibit a state agency from altering any recommendation made to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regarding a health care provider's certification to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid program based solely on the recommendation from an individual health care provider that a patient have access to an investigational drug, biological product, or device.
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. This bill, until January 1, 2022, upon a declaration of a shelter crisis by the City of San Jose would authorize emergency housing to include an emergency bridge housing community for the homeless. The bill would define an emergency bridge housing community to include, but not be limited to, housing in temporary structures including, but not limited to, emergency sleeping cabins, as defined. The bill, in lieu of compliance with state and local building, housing, health, habitability, or safety standards and laws, would authorize the city to adopt by ordinance reasonable local standards for emergency bridge housing communities, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to review 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, among other things, to match each resident of an emergency bridge housing community to an affordable housing unit identified in the city's housing plan that will be available for the resident to live in on or before January 1, 2022, and develop a plan for emergency bridge housing communities to include on-site supportive services. The bill would further require the city to annually report to the Legislature specific information on emergency bridge housing communities, including, among other information, the number of residents in every emergency bridge housing community and the actual and projected number of permanent affordable housing units available through January 1, 2022. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of San Jose.