Asm. Pilar Schiavo

Existing law requires county offices of education and the governing boards of school districts and community college districts, except those incorporating the merit system, to employ persons for positions not requiring certification qualifications or that are not academic, as applicable, and to classify those employees and positions, and requires that they be known as the classified service, as provided. This bill would require these governing boards and county offices, including those incorporating the merit system and including certain joint powers authorities formed by them, to offer vacancies for part-time or full-time positions, as a right of first refusal for 10 business days, with specified priorities, to current regular nonprobationary classified employees who meet the minimum job qualifications of the position or who could meet the minimum job qualifications before their start date, unless otherwise negotiated by the education employer and the exclusive representatives of the applicable employees. The bill would require these employers, referred to in the bill as education employers, to adhere to specified requirements, including, among others, that they provide all of their classified employees and their exclusive representatives notice of, and instructions for applying for, any new classified position, and that they not offer the position to any applicant until after the position has been noticed for 10 business days. The bill would authorize an employee who accepts a new assignment to elect to either add the hours for the new assignment to their current assignment, if feasible, or, if the new assignment is more hours than their current assignment, would authorize the employee to replace their current assignment with the new assignment, and would require the education employer to provide reasonable modifications to the assignment schedules to allow the employee to work both assignments, as provided. The bill would require an education employer to accept a current part-time employee's number of years of service with the education employer, regardless of the capacity in which they were earned, when that part-time employee applies for an additional part-time assignment that requires a certain number of years of service. The bill would require classified employees who work part-time assignments that equal the number of hours for a full-time assignment for the same education employer to receive the same benefits as employees who work a full-time assignment. The bill would expressly prohibit retaliation against classified employees for either refusing or accepting a vacancy. The bill would prohibit applicants from being offered a vacancy if the total of the regular hours of the 2 positions would require overtime pay or otherwise violate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 or any other state or federal law. The bill would not apply to (1) an employee who is in the process of completing a written performance improvement plan, who was previously involuntarily demoted from the same position as the vacancy, who has been suspended, or who is the subject of a pending disciplinary action for suspension or dismissal, or (2) confidential or management employees or vacancies for their positions, as provided. Existing law requires a person laid off by a county office of education, school district, or community college district because of lack of work or funds to be eligible for reemployment for period of 39 months, as specified. This bill would provide that its provisions do not supersede that requirement, and would also not apply to an education employer with a contravening collective bargaining agreement in effect on January 1, 2024, until the expiration or renewal of that agreement.

Existing law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, makes unlawful certain unfair methods of competition and certain unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by a person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to a consumer, including representing that the consumer will receive a rebate, discount, or other economic benefit if the earning of the benefit is contingent on an event to occur subsequent to the consummation of the transaction. This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to those provisions.

Existing law requires a core recycler that accepts, ships, or sells used catalytic converters to maintain specified information regarding the purchase and sale of the catalytic converters. Existing law prohibits a core recycler from providing payment for a catalytic converter unless, among other requirements, the payment is made by check, as specified. This bill, in addition to payment by check, would allow for payment by credit card or any other form of traceable payment other than cash. Existing law licenses and regulates motor vehicle dealers and retailers. Existing law prohibits a motor vehicle dealer or retailer from selling any motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the requirements enumerated in the Vehicle Code. This bill would prohibit a dealer or retailer from selling a new or used motor vehicle equipped with a catalytic converter unless the catalytic converter has been permanently marked, as defined, with the vehicle identification number of the vehicle to which it is attached. The bill would, until January 1, 2025, exempt from this prohibition a vehicle purchased from a dealer licensed in this state who is also licensed in another state and does not have a warranty service facility in this state. A violation of this provision would be punishable as an infraction, as specified. By creating a new infraction, 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, the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act, classifies controlled substances into 5 schedules and places the greatest restrictions and penalties on the use of those substances placed in Schedule I. The act classifies the drug fentanyl in Schedule II. Existing law prohibits a person from possessing for sale or purchasing for purposes of sale, specified controlled substances, including fentanyl, and provides for imprisonment in a county jail for 2, 3, or 4 years for a violation of this provision. This bill would, subject to an appropriation, establish the Fentanyl Misuse and Overdose Prevention Task Force to undertake various duties relating to fentanyl misuse, including, among others, collecting and organizing data on the nature and extent of fentanyl misuse in California and evaluating approaches to increase public awareness of fentanyl misuse. The bill would require the task force to be cochaired by the Attorney General and the State Public Health Officer, or their designees, and would specify the membership of the task force. The bill would require the first meeting of the task force to take place no later than June 1, 2024, and would require the task force to meet at least once every 2 months. The bill would require the task force to submit an interim report to the Governor and the Legislature by July 1, 2025, and would require the task force to report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature by December 1, 2025. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2026. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development and sets forth its powers and duties, including promoting the development of affordable housing in the state. Existing law creates the California Housing Finance Agency within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and authorizes the agency to make loans to finance affordable housing. Existing law establishes the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee to allocate specified federal low-income housing tax credits. Existing law also establishes the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee for the purpose of implementing the volume limit for the state on private activity bonds established pursuant to federal law. Under existing law, the committee's duties include annually determining a state ceiling on the aggregate amount of private activity bonds that may be issued, and allocating that amount among state and local agencies. This bill would require specified reviewing entities, as defined as the above-described entities, to jointly convene an Affordable Housing Finance Workgroup to develop recommendations for state-administered programs to utilize a consolidated application for multifamily affordable rental housing developers to use to obtain grants, soft loans, low-income housing tax credits, tax exempt bonds, federal funds, as applicable, and other types of subsidies for building affordable housing, and develop a coordinated review process for the application, as described. The bill would require the workgroup to include representatives of the reviewing entities, nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing developers, and local and tribal governments. The bill would require the workgroup to identify specified information, including any state-administered program that may utilize the consolidated application and coordinated review process, and a timeline for developing a single consolidated application and coordinated review process. On or before, July 1, 2026, the bill would require the workgroup to report recommendations on implementing a single consolidated application and coordinated review process to the reviewing entities, the Legislature, and certain committees of the Legislature. The bill would require the reviewing entities to develop and report to the Legislature a plan to update state-administered programs that may utilize the consolidated application and coordinated review process based on the recommendations of the workgroup on or before January 1, 2027, as specified.

Existing law permits a person who holds or is acquiring an ownership interest of record in property that the person believes is the subject of an unlawfully restrictive covenant based on, among other things, the number of persons or families who may reside on the property, to record a restrictive covenant modification. Existing law entitles the owner of an affordable housing development to establish that an existing restrictive covenant is unenforceable by submitting a restrictive covenant modification document that modifies or removes any existing restrictive covenant language. Before recording the modification document, existing law requires the owner to submit to the county recorder a copy of the original restrictive covenant and any documents the owner believes necessary to establish that the property qualifies as an affordable housing development for purposes of these provisions. As part of this process, existing law requires the county counsel to determine, among other things, if the property qualifies as an affordable housing development and if a modification document may be recorded. If the county counsel has authorized the county recorder to record the modification document, that authorization is required to be noted on the face of the modification or on a cover sheet affixed to it. This bill would require the county recorder to notify the owner or submitting party of the county counsel's determination without delay, so that notice may be given by the owner regarding the authorization to record the modification document. The bill would permit the owner, upon receipt of that notification, to mail copies of the modification documents and related materials by certified mail to anyone who the owner knows has an interest in the property or the restrictive covenant. The bill would also establish a process by which notice by the owner to the intended recipient would be deemed given. The bill would provide that notice by the owner is optional and failure to provide it does not invalidate a recorded restrictive covenant modification document. Existing law prohibits the county recorder from recording the modification document if the county counsel finds that the original restrictive covenant document does not contain a prohibited restriction, or if the county counsel finds that the property does not qualify as an affordable housing development. This bill would additionally prohibit the owner from recording the modification document if the owner of the property is not yet its record title owner but is instead a beneficial owner, as specified, until the owner closes escrow on the property and becomes its record title owner. For purposes of these provisions, the bill would define "owner" to mean any record title owner of the property, beneficial owner of the property, or individual controlling the property for purposes of developing an affordable housing project, as specified. Existing law requires the county recorder to charge a standard recording fee to an owner who submits a modification document for recordation pursuant to these provisions. This bill would, instead, authorize the county recorder to charge the above-described standard recording fee. This bill would additionally require a suit that challenges the validity of a restrictive covenant modification document that is filed by a party that has been given notice as described above to be filed within 35 days of that notice. The bill would make conforming changes to these provisions. By placing additional duties on county officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to grant a request by any employee to take up to 5 days of bereavement leave upon the death of a family member. This bill would additionally make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to grant a request by an eligible employee to take up to 5 days of reproductive loss leave following a reproductive loss event, as defined. The bill would require that leave be taken within 3 months of the event, except as described, and pursuant to any existing leave policy of the employer. The bill would provide that if an employee experiences more than one reproductive loss event within a 12-month period, the employer is not obligated to grant a total amount of reproductive loss leave time in excess of 20 days within a 12-month period. Under the bill, in the absence of an existing policy, the reproductive loss leave may be unpaid. However, the bill would authorize an employee to use certain other leave balances otherwise available to the employee, including accrued and available paid sick leave. The bill would make leave under these provisions a separate and distinct right from any right under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against an individual, as described, because of the individual's exercise of the right to reproductive loss leave or the individual's giving of information or testimony as to reproductive loss leave, as described. The bill would require the employer to maintain employee confidentiality relating to reproductive loss leave, as specified. 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.

Existing law provides that libel is a false and unprivileged written publication that injures the reputation and that slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, that injures the reputation, as specified. Existing law makes certain publications and communications privileged and therefore protected from civil action, including complaints of sexual harassment by an employee, without malice, to an employer based on credible evidence and communications between the employer and interested persons regarding a complaint of sexual harassment. This bill would include among those privileged communications a communication made by an individual, without malice, regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination, as defined, and would specify the attorney's fees and damages available to a prevailing defendant in any defamation action brought against that defendant for making that communication.