Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Under the ABC test, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of the ABC test described above. Existing law, instead, provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the multifactor test previously established in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. On March 4, 2020, the Governor declared a State of Emergency in accordance with the powers vested in the Governor under the California Constitution and statutes in order to preserve public health and safety throughout the state due to the threat of COVID-19. This bill would, during the timeframe in which a state of emergency is in effect due to COVID-19 and 90 days thereafter, prohibit the application of the ABC test for respiratory therapists and other medical personnel not otherwise covered by an existing exemption from the ABC test, and would instead require that the multifactor test set forth in the case of Borello apply.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law establishes that, for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from these provisions. This bill would prohibit an employer from being subject to a monetary fine or penalty for a violation of the above provisions with respect to an applicant who has applied for unemployment benefits and has previously acted as an independent contractor during the past 5 years. The bill would repeal this provision on January 1, 2026. (2) The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 authorizes an aggrieved employee on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees to bring a civil action to recover specified civil penalties that would otherwise be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for the violation of certain provisions affecting employees. The act requires compliance with specified filing requirements by the aggrieved employee in order to bring the action, including providing notice to the agency and the employer with the specific provisions of the Labor Code alleged to have been violated, and the facts and theories that support the alleged violations. This bill would provide that the above act does not apply to an employee with respect to worker classification pursuant to a wage order if the employee has filed for unemployment insurance benefits and the employee's previous employer hired the employee as an independent contractor before January 1, 2020. The bill would repeal this provision on January 1, 2026. (3) Existing law authorizes the Employment Development Department to administer the federal-state unemployment insurance program and provides for the payment of unemployment compensation benefits to eligible individuals who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Existing law establishes procedures for the filing, determination, and payment of benefit claims, and those benefits are payable from the Unemployment Fund. Existing law requires the department to promptly pay benefits if it finds the claimant is eligible and to promptly deny benefits if it finds the claimant is ineligible for benefits. Existing law requires the department to consider facts submitted by an employer in making this determination and also provides for the department to audit claims, as specified. This bill would provide that an audit triggered pursuant to the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) does not authorize the department or the Labor Commissioner, with respect to a claim for unemployment compensation benefits, to audit a previous determination of worker classification regarding an applicant's work for previous employers if the applicant has designated themselves as self-employed or as an independent contractor during the past 5 years. The bill would repeal this provision on January 1, 2026.
Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Under the ABC test, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of Dynamex and the provisions described above. Existing law instead provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the test adopted in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. This bill would expand these exemptions to include an individual providing services as a licensed clinical social worker, a licensed education psychologist, a licensed professional clinical counselor, or a licensed marriage and family therapist.
Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) , creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of specified wage orders. Existing law establishes that, for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. This test is commonly known as the "ABC" test. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of Dynamex and these provisions. Existing law instead provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the test adopted in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. This bill would expand the above-described exemptions to also include individuals providing services as a sports official, as defined, for a youth or adult amateur sports event, unless the official is already exempted from the definition of employee under another statute or regulation, as specified.
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law, until July 1, 2026, authorizes the board of governors, in consultation with the California State University and the University of California, to establish a statewide baccalaureate degree pilot program. Existing law requires a community college district baccalaureate degree pilot program to commence no later than the 2017–18 academic year, and requires students participating in a baccalaureate degree pilot program to commence their degrees by the beginning of the 2022–23 academic year. Existing law prohibits a participating community college district from offering more than one baccalaureate degree program or a baccalaureate degree program or program curricula already offered by the California State University or the University of California. This bill would make the baccalaureate degree pilot program established by the Antelope Valley Community College District under these provisions a permanent baccalaureate degree program. The bill would authorize the Antelope Valley Community College District to offer a baccalaureate degree program and program curricula to meet local needs unmet by the same California State University or University of California baccalaureate degree program that is regularly at enrollment capacity. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Antelope Valley Community College District.
Under existing law, a person is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, if they intentionally distribute an image that was intended to remain private of the intimate body parts of another or of the person depicted engaged in a sex act, as specified. Existing law requires prosecution for this offense to be commenced within one year after commission of the offense. This bill would instead allow prosecution for this offense to commence within one year of the discovery of the commission of the offense.
Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as soon as placement of an inmate in any reentry or work furlough program is planned, but in no case less than 60 days prior to that placement, to send written notice, if notice has been requested, to the chief of police of the city, and the sheriff of the county, in which the inmate will reside or in which placement will be made, and to the victim of the crime for which the inmate was convicted or the next of kin. Existing law requires that notice to include a glossy photograph, as specified, and fingerprints of each inmate placed in the reentry or work furlough program. This bill would allow the department to include an equivalent digital photograph in the notice instead of the glossy photograph.
Existing law defines the crime of burglary to include entering a vehicle when the doors are locked with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny or a felony. Existing law makes the burglary of a vehicle punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would make forcibly entering a vehicle, as defined, with the intent to commit a theft therein a crime punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year or imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years. By creating a new 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.
Existing law defines the crime of burglary to include entering a vehicle when the doors are locked with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny or a felony. Existing law makes the burglary of a vehicle punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would require the Board of State and Community Corrections to administer grants to law enforcement agencies that participate in regional vehicle burglary reduction joint task forces. The bill would make law enforcement agencies in specified counties eligible to participate in the regional task forces. The bill would require participating law enforcement agencies in each region to form a joint task force coordination council consisting of the sheriff or chief of police, or their representatives, of each participating law enforcement agency, and would authorize the Commissioner of the Department of the California Highway Patrol to designate a representative of the California Highway Patrol to serve as an ex officio member for each task force. The bill would require the board to distribute funding to the task forces, and require those funds to be expended with the goal of reducing vehicle burglary, identifying suspects engaged in vehicle burglary, identifying interregional movement of vehicle burglary offenders, coordinating joint vehicle burglary enforcement efforts, and promoting law enforcement training and best practices to reduce the incidence of vehicle burglary. The bill would additionally require the lead agency of each task force to report to the board specified information relating to the crime of vehicle burglary in the jurisdictions participating in the task force. The bill would require the board to compile those statistics and, on or after January 1 of the year subsequent to the receipt of those reports, and annually thereafter, to report this information to the Legislature and the Governor and post the information on the board's internet website. The bill would require these provisions to be implemented only to the extent that funding is appropriated for these purposes, as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Riverside, and Ventura, and the City and County of San Francisco.
Under existing law, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, the State Department of Developmental Services is responsible for providing various services and supports to individuals with developmental disabilities, and for ensuring the appropriateness and quality of those services and supports. Under existing law, the department contracts with regional centers to provide services and supports to persons with developmental disabilities. Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services, including dental services that are provided under a fee-for-service system, which is referred to as Denti-Cal program, and managed care in the Counties of Los Angeles and Sacramento. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law establishes various pilots and programs, including the Caries Risk Assessment and Disease Management Pilot, a dental integration pilot program in County of San Mateo, and a dental outreach and education program, which address dental services provided under the Medi-Cal program. This bill would require the department to establish and administer a 5-year pilot program to educate and train Denti-Cal providers on how to effectively serve Medi-Cal beneficiaries with intellectual or developmental disabilities who are regional center consumers, to contract with an independent evaluator, and to utilize an expert to perform specified duties, including advising on the design of the pilot program. The bill would require a Denti-Cal provider who participates in the pilot program to complete continuing education hours and clinical hours working with Medi-Cal beneficiaries who are regional center consumers, and would require the department to determine the number of continuing education and clinical hours, in collaboration with the Dental Board of California and the Dental Hygiene Board of California within the Department of Consumer Affairs. The bill would require the department to establish a supplemental provider payment under the Denti-Cal program for any dental provider who renders dental services to regional center consumers and has completed the continuing education and clinical hours, and to issue, no later than one year after the initial funding of the pilot program, a report to the Legislature on the evaluation of the pilot program. The bill would repeal those provisions on January 1, 2027.