Asm. Marie Waldron

This measure would declare March 5, 2020, as Family Justice Center Day in California and would recognize the lifesaving and hope-giving work of the California Family Justice Center Network and its member Family Justice Centers as they work with rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, human trafficking agencies, prosecutors' offices, law enforcement agencies, and other professionals and community-based organizations to ensure that adult and child survivors of trauma can access all of their services in one setting.

This measure would recognize March 7, 2020, as California Arbor Day, and would urge California residents to observe the day with appropriate tree-planting activities and programs.

Existing case 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 those purposes. Existing statutory 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 not an employee under 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 the "ABC" test described above. Existing law, instead, provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the multifactor test previously adopted in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. This bill would also exempt from the "ABC" test specified individuals working as interpreters and translators.

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 those purposes. 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, as described above. 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. This bill would expand these exemptions to include an individual who holds an active license from the State of California and is practicing as a land surveyor, landscape architect, geologist, or geophysicist and to include an individual who is a construction manager or planner.

Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. 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 those purposes. 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, as described above. 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, including various professional services provided by graphic designers, grant writers, and fine artists, among others. This bill would also exempt transportation network companies from the application of Dynamex and the above provisions.

Existing law authorizes counties to provide drug court programs for specified individuals. Existing law authorizes the presiding judge of the superior court, together with the district attorney and the public defender, to establish a preguilty plea drug court program that includes a regimen of graduated sanctions and rewards, individual and group therapy, and educational or vocational counseling, among other things. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would clarify that a court may collaborate with outside organizations on a program to offer mental health and addiction treatment services, as defined, to women who are charged in a complaint that consists only of misdemeanor offenses or who are on probation for one or more misdemeanor offenses. The bill would exclude from these provisions a woman who is charged with a felony or who is under supervision for a felony conviction.