Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (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 establish that a worker is an independent contractor for those purposes. Existing law, for purposes of unemployment insurance provisions, requires employers to make contributions with respect to unemployment insurance and disability insurance from the wages paid to their employees. Existing law defines "employee" for those purposes to include, among other individuals, any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to codify the decision in the Dynamex case and clarify its application. The bill would provide that for purposes of the provisions 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 shall be 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. The bill, notwithstanding this provision, would provide that any statutory exception from employment status or any extension of employer status or liability remains in effect, and that if a court rules that the 3-part test cannot be applied, then the determination of employee or independent contractor status shall be governed by the test adopted in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 (Borello) . The bill would exempt specified occupations from the application of Dynamex, and would instead provide that these occupations are governed by Borello. These exempt occupations would include, among others, licensed insurance agents, certain licensed health care professionals, registered securities broker-dealers or investment advisers, direct sales salespersons, real estate licensees, commercial fishermen, workers providing licensed barber or cosmetology services, and others performing work under a contract for professional services, with another business entity, or pursuant to a subcontract in the construction industry. The bill would also require the Employment Development Department, on or before March 1, 2021, and each March 1 thereafter, to issue an annual report to the Legislature on the use of unemployment insurance in the commercial fishing industry. The bill would make the exemption for commercial fishermen applicable only until January 1, 2023, and the exemption for licensed manicurists applicable only until January 1, 2022. The bill would authorize an action for injunctive relief to prevent employee misclassification to be brought by the Attorney General and specified local prosecuting agencies. This bill would also redefine the definition of "employee" described above, for purposes of unemployment insurance provisions, to include an individual providing labor or services for remuneration who has the status of an employee rather than an independent contractor, unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the individual meets all of specified conditions, including that the individual performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business. Because this bill would increase the categories of individuals eligible to receive benefits from, and thus would result in additional moneys being deposited into, the Unemployment Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation. The bill would state that addition of the provision to the Labor Code does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law with regard to violations of the Labor Code relating to wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. The bill would also state that specified Labor Code provisions of the bill apply retroactively to existing claims and actions to the maximum extent permitted by law while other provisions apply to work performed on or after January 1, 2020. The bill would additionally provide that the bill's provisions do not permit an employer to reclassify an individual who was an employee on January 1, 2019, to an independent contractor due to the bill's enactment. Existing provisions of the Labor Code make it a crime for an employer to violate specified provisions of law with regard to an employee. The Unemployment Insurance Code also makes it a crime to violate specified provisions of law with regard to benefits and payments. By expanding the definition of an employee for purposes of these provisions, the bill would expand the definition of a crime, thereby imposing 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.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law authorizes a person who has suffered harassment to seek a temporary restraining order and an order prohibiting the harassment. Existing law authorizes a minor or the minor's legal guardian to petition the court to have information regarding the minor that was obtained while issuing a protective order pursuant to this provision to be kept confidential. Disclosure or misuse of information ordered to be kept confidential is enforced as a civil contempt of court, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000. This bill would require a notice to be sent to the respondent of a petition seeking an order to keep information confidential that identifies the information that has been made confidential and a statement that a disclosure is punishable by a monetary fine. The bill would authorize a court, either on its own motion at any time or upon a petition filed by a person, to grant a disclosure of information ordered to be kept confidential to certain individuals or entities as necessary to prevent harassment or if it is in the best interest of the minor. The bill would require the party who sought to keep the information confidential to be served with a petition to disclose confidential information and afforded an opportunity to object. The bill would authorize the minor's legal guardian who petitioned to keep the information confidential, the party protected by an order issued under the act, or a person who received confidential information to disclose confidential information without a court order under specified conditions. The bill would modify the civil contempt fine for a disclosure or misuse of confidential information to instead authorize a court to impose a sanction of up to $1,000 for a disclosure of confidential information made without a court order, except that the bill would prohibit the court from imposing a sanction upon a minor who alleged harassment. The bill would require a court, before imposing a sanction, to first determine whether a person has, or is reasonably likely to have, the ability to pay a sanction. (2) The Domestic Violence Prevention Act, among other things, authorizes a court, upon a petition by a minor or the minor's legal guardian, to order information regarding the minor obtained while issuing a protective order pursuant to the act to be kept confidential. The act requires the information regarding the minor that is ordered to be kept confidential to be maintained in a confidential case file and prohibits the information from becoming part of the public file in the proceeding or any other civil proceeding. Disclosure or misuse of the confidential information is enforced as a civil contempt of court, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000. This bill would modify the prohibition on the confidential information becoming part of the public file to instead prohibit the information from becoming part of the public file in the proceeding, any other proceeding initiated under the Family Code, or any other civil proceeding. The bill would authorize a court to grant a petition to disclose confidential information, if the court makes certain determinations, and would require the party who sought to keep the information confidential to be served with the petition and afforded an opportunity to object. The bill would authorize the court, at any time and on its own, to authorize a disclosure of any portion of the confidential information to certain individuals or entities if certain conditions are met. The bill would authorize the minor's legal guardian who petitioned to keep the information confidential, the party protected by an order issued under the act, or a person who received confidential information to disclose confidential information without a court order under specified conditions. The bill would modify the civil contempt fine for a disclosure or misuse of confidential information to instead authorize a court to impose a sanction of up to $1,000 for a disclosure of confidential information that is not allowed under the provisions described above, except that the bill would prohibit the court from imposing a sanction upon a minor who alleged abuse, as defined. The bill would require a court, before imposing a sanction, to first determine whether a person has, or is reasonably likely to have, the ability to pay a sanction. (3) The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
This measure would proclaim the week of September 23, 2019, to September 29, 2019, as Diaper Need Awareness Week and encourage California citizens to support organizations that help alleviate diaper need.
This measure would, among other things, designate the year 2019 as "State of California Year of Commemoration of the Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915–1923," would designate April 24, 2019, as "State of California Day of Commemoration of the 104th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915–1923," and would call upon the President of the United States and the United States Congress to formally and consistently reaffirm the historical truth that the atrocities committed against the Armenian people constituted genocide.
This measure would request the Trustees of the California State University and the Regents of the University of California to conduct a study on the usefulness, effectiveness, and need for the SAT and ACT to determine student admissions, and would provide that the study should include evaluation of specified admissions eligibility and qualifications measures and testing issues. The measure would also provide that the study should include recommendations and, if determined necessary, a plan for phasing out the use of the SAT and ACT as a basis for admission.
This measure would request the President and the Congress of the United States to enact legislation that would strengthen the communication between federal, state, local, and tribal officials, and that would require the United States Department of Justice, United States Department of the Interior, and United States Department of Health and Human Services to seek recommendations from tribes in enhancing the safety of Native American women and girls. The measure would also request that the Attorney General of the State of California begin the collection of data as it relates to missing and murdered Native American women and girls.
Existing law generally makes it unlawful to offer a prize or other inducement as a reward for the taking of a game bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian in an individual contest, tournament, or derby. Existing law makes specific exceptions to that general prohibition, including authorizing the Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue a permit, subject to Fish and Game Commission regulations, to a person authorizing that person to offer a prize or other inducement as a reward for the taking of a game fish if it makes a specified finding. Existing law vests the Department of Parks and Recreation with the control of the state park system. Existing regulations of the Department of Parks and Recreation prohibit a person from having control over a game or recreational activity occurring wholly or partially within or on any property owned, operated or administered by the department without an approved special event permit, as defined. Existing law authorizes the State Lands Commission to lease state lands under the jurisdiction of the commission for purposes as the commission deems advisable, including, but not limited to, grazing leases and leases for commercial, industrial, and recreational purposes. The California Coastal Act of 1976 establishes the California Coastal Commission and requires the commission to implement and administer a coastal development permit process within the coastal zone, as defined. The act exempts from the requirement for a coastal development permit a proposed development found to be a temporary event that does not have any significant adverse impact upon coastal resources within the meaning of guidelines adopted by the commission. The act subjects any permit that is issued or any development or action approved on appeal to be subject to reasonable terms and conditions in order to ensure that the development or action will be in accordance with the act. The act also declares that existing laws relating to discrimination and environmental justice apply to the California Coastal Commission and all public agencies implementing the act. The act provides that, as required by existing law relating to discrimination, no person in the State of California, on specified bases including sex, may be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination, under specified programs or activities under the act. Under existing law, the Department of Transportation may issue permits authorizing encroachments, as defined, on state highways. Existing law requires the department to either approve or deny an application for an encroachment permit within 60 days of receiving a completed application. This bill would require those entities to include in permit or lease conditions, for a competition event to be held on land under the jurisdiction of the entity, as described, and that awards prize compensation, as defined, to competitors in gendered categories, a requirement that the prize compensation be identical between the gendered categories at each participant level.
This measure would recognize August 15, 2019, as India's Independence Day, and urge all Californians to join in celebrating India's independence.