Existing law, the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, or California Family Rights Act (CFRA) , makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, as defined, to refuse to grant a request by an eligible employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period (1) for reason of a child born to, adopted by, or placed for foster care with, the employee, (2) to care for the employee's parent or spouse who has a serious health condition, as defined, or (3) because the employee is suffering from a serious health condition rendering him or her unable to perform the functions of the job. 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 to allow an employee with more than 12 months of service with the employer, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, and who works at a worksite in which the employer employs at least 20 employees within 75 miles, to take up to 12 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 bill would allow the employer to recover coverage costs under specific circumstances. The bill would provide that it would not apply to an employee who is subject to both specified state law regarding family care and medical leave, and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Under the bill, if the employer employs both parents and they are entitled to leave pursuant to this bill for the same birth, adoption, or foster care placement, the parents' mandated parental leave would be capped at the amount granted to an employee by the bill. The bill would authorize the employer to grant simultaneous leave to these parents. This bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to hire, or from discharging, fining, suspending, expelling, or discriminating against, an individual for exercising the right to parental leave provided by this bill or giving information or testimony as to his or her own parental leave, or another person's parental leave, in an inquiry or proceeding related to rights guaranteed under this bill. The bill would additionally prohibit an employer from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this bill. The bill would require the Fair Employment and Housing Council, to the extent that state regulations interpreting CFRA are within the scope of, and not inconsistent with the bill or with other state law, to incorporate those regulations by reference to govern leave under the bill. Under existing law, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing is authorized to provide mediation services to parties involved in actions under its jurisdiction. This bill, until January 1, 2020, would require the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, upon receiving funding from the Legislature, to create a parental leave mediation pilot program, as specified. Under the pilot program, within 60 days of receipt of a right-to-sue notice, an employer may request all parties to participate in the department's Mediation Division Program. If the employer makes such a request, the bill would prohibit an employee from pursuing any civil action under these provisions until the mediation is complete, as defined, which would include an employee's election not to participate in mediation. The bill would provide that the employee's statute of limitations would be tolled during the course of the mediation, as specified.
Sponsored bills
Existing law specifies that a food facility that donates any food that is fit for human consumption at the time it was donated to a nonprofit charitable organization or a food bank is not liable for any damage or injury resulting from the consumption of the donated food, unless the injury resulted from negligence or a willful act in the preparation or handling of the donated food. This bill, the California Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, would expand these provisions to persons and gleaners who donate food, as defined. The bill would narrow the exception to protection from liability to injury resulting from gross negligence or intentional misconduct. The bill would specify that the immunity from civil liability provided by these provisions applies to the donation of food that is fit for human consumption and that has exceeded the labeled shelf life date recommended by the manufacturer, provided, in instances of perishable food, the person that distributes the food to the end recipient makes a good faith evaluation that the food is wholesome. The bill would authorize food facilities to donate food directly to end recipients for consumption. Existing law specifies that a nonprofit charitable organization or food bank is not liable for an injury or death from distributing food without charge that is fit for human consumption unless the injury or death is a direct result of negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct. This bill would narrow the exception to protection from liability to injury or death as a direct result of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Existing law authorizes a person engaged in the business of processing, distributing, or selling an agricultural product to donate, free of charge, a product that is in a condition that it may be used as food for human beings, to a nonprofit charitable organization. Existing law limits the liability of a county, its agencies, and persons who donate agricultural products. Existing law provides that these provisions do not relieve any nonprofit charitable organization from any liability for any injury, including, but not limited to, injury resulting from the ingesting of an agricultural product, as a result of receiving, accepting, gathering, or removing any donated agricultural product. This bill would expand this provision to include a gleaner and also authorize food facilities to donate food directly to end recipients for consumption. The bill would specify that these donations are protected under this act if the donated food has exceeded the labeled shelf life date recommended by the manufacturer, provided, in instances of perishable food, the person that distributes the food to the end recipient makes a good faith evaluation that the food is wholesome. The bill would repeal these provisions relating to not relieving nonprofit charitable organizations from liability for injuries. Existing law authorizes a food facility to donate food to a food bank or to any other nonprofit charitable organization for distribution to persons free of charge. Existing law exempts a food facility that donates food from civil or criminal liability or penalty for violation of any laws, regulations, or ordinances regulating the labeling or packaging of the donated product or, with respect to any other laws, regulations, or ordinances, for a violation occurring after the time of the donation. This bill would also authorize a person or gleaner to donate food to a food bank or to a nonprofit charitable organization and exempt the person or gleaner from civil or criminal liability relating to the donated food. The bill would also expand these provisions to include the donation of food by food facilities directly to end recipients. The bill would specify that the immunity from civil or criminal liability or penalty applies to the donation of food that has exceeded the labeled shelf life date recommended by the manufacturer, provided, in instances of perishable food, the person that distributes the food to the end recipient makes a good faith evaluation that the food is wholesome. The bill would require enforcement officers to promote the recovery of food fit for human consumption, as specified. Because the bill would require local officials to perform additional duties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make other conforming and nonsubstantive changes. 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 sets forth various requirements for the issuance of diplomas conferred upon a pupil as evidence of graduation from high school. Existing law establishes the Golden State Seal Merit Diploma for the purpose of recognizing pupils who have mastered the high school curriculum. Existing law also establishes the State Seal of Biliteracy, awarded by the Superintendent of Public Instruction in accordance with specified criteria, to recognize high school graduates who have attained a high level of proficiency in speaking, reading, and writing in one or more languages in addition to English. This bill would require the Superintendent, on or before January 1, 2020, to recommend to the State Board of Education criteria for awarding a State Seal of Civic Engagement to pupils who have demonstrated excellence in civics education and participation and have demonstrated an understanding of the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and the democratic system of government. The bill would require the Superintendent to consider, among other criteria, the successful completion of history, government, and civics courses, including courses that incorporate character education, and voluntary participation in community service or extracurricular activities. The bill would require the state board, on or before January 31, 2021, to adopt, reject, or modify the criteria recommended by the Superintendent. The bill would require the Superintendent to prepare and deliver to participating school districts the seal insignia to be affixed to the diploma or transcript of a pupil awarded the State Seal of Civic Engagement. The bill would also require participating school districts to maintain records in order to identify pupils who have earned the State Seal of Civic Engagement and to affix the appropriate insignia to the diploma or transcript of those pupils.
Existing law establishes a statewide system of courts with a superior court of one or more judges in each county. Existing law authorizes the Judicial Council to prescribe the methods, means, and standards for electronic collection of data related to court administration, practice, and procedure. This bill would require the Judicial Council, if certain funding is provided, to report to the Legislature, on or before June 1, 2020, on a study of veterans and veterans treatment courts that includes a statewide assessment, as specified, of veterans treatment courts currently in operation and a survey of counties that do not operate veterans treatment courts that identifies barriers to program implementation and assesses the need for veterans treatment courts in those counties. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2021.
Existing law authorizes counties to establish a child abuse multidisciplinary personnel team, as defined, to allow provider agencies to share confidential information in order to investigate reports of suspected child abuse or neglect or for the purpose of child welfare agencies making detention determinations, as specified. This bill would authorize counties to also establish a homeless adult and family multidisciplinary personnel team, as defined, with the goal of facilitating the expedited identification, assessment, and linkage of homeless individuals to housing and supportive services within that county and to allow provider agencies to share confidential information, as specified, for the purpose of coordinating housing and supportive services to ensure continuity of care. The bill would require the sharing of information permitted under these provisions to be governed by protocols developed in each county, as specified, and would require each county to provide a copy of its protocols to the State Department of Social Services. This bill would authorize the homeless adult and family multidisciplinary personnel team to designate qualified persons to be a member of the team for a particular case and would require every member who receives information or records regarding adults and families in his or her capacity as a member of the team to be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records. The bill would also require the information or records to be maintained in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights.
Existing law requires specified businesses and other establishments to post a notice, as developed by the Department of Justice, that contains information relating to slavery and human trafficking, including information regarding specified nonprofit organizations that a person can call for services or support in the elimination of slavery and human trafficking. This bill would require the notice to specify that a person can also text a specified number for services and support and would revise the names of the nonprofit organizations listed in the notice. The bill, by January 1, 2019, would also require the department to revise and update the notice, as specified. The bill would provide that any business or establishment required to post the model notice would not be required to post the updated model notice until on and after January 1, 2019. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 52.6 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 260 to be operative only if this bill and AB 260 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law permits the Department of Toxic Substances Control or an agency authorized to implement and enforce certain laws relating to hazardous materials, known as a unified program agency, to enforce the Hazardous Waste Control Law. Existing law authorizes the department or a unified program agency to issue an order that requires a violation to be corrected and imposes an administrative penalty when there is a violation of the hazardous waste control laws, laws regulating hazardous substances, or any permit, rule, regulation, standard, or requirement issued or adopted pursuant to those laws. Under existing law, a person who does not comply with the order is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day of noncompliance. In lieu of an administrative penalty, existing law makes any person who intentionally or negligently makes a false statement or representation for purposes of compliance with the hazardous waste control laws, violates a provision of the hazardous waste control laws, disposes or causes the disposal of a hazardous waste at an unauthorized site, or treats or stores a hazardous waste at an unauthorized site liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000, as specified. This bill would increase these administrative and civil penalties to $70,000 and would make nonsubstantive changes in these provisions.
Existing law defines extortion as the obtaining of property from another, with his or her consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right. This bill would include within the definition of extortion the obtaining of consideration, as defined, by force, fear, or under color of official right. The bill would define "consideration" as anything of value, including enumerated sexual acts or sexual images. By changing the elements of the crime of extortion, 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.
(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.