Under the California Constitution and the Public Utilities Act, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations. The act establishes the Universal Lifeline Telephone Service program (lifeline program) in order to provide low-income households with access to affordable basic residential telephone service. This bill would require the commission, before March 1, 2022, to adopt updated rules for the lifeline program establishing a modified recertification process that minimizes barriers to lifeline subscriber recertification and reduces the burden and cost of recertification on the lifeline program, as specified. The bill would require the commission, in consultation with lifeline service providers, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Universal Service Administrative Company, before January 1, 2023, to adopt updated rules for the lifeline program with the goal of achieving recertification rates at least equivalent to those rates achieved for the federal lifeline program. The bill would require the commission to annually publicly report on its internet website the participation and recertification rates of eligible lifeline subscribers. Under existing law, a violation of the act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill would be a part of the act and because a violation of an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission implementing its requirements would be a crime, 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law allows a person who is no longer in criminal custody to file a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence based on a prejudicial error damaging to the moving party's ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. This bill would instead authorize a person to make that motion based on a prejudicial error damaging to the moving party's ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.
Existing law generally requires the licensure and regulation of various health care facilities, including, among others, a hospice facility. The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, prohibits specified criminal penalties from being imposed on a patient or a patient's primary caregiver who possesses or cultivates cannabis for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. Existing law, known as the Medical Marijuana Program, requires counties to administer an identification card program for qualified patients and provides immunity from arrest to qualified patients with a valid identification card or designated primary caregivers, within prescribed limits. This bill, the Compassionate Access to Medical Cannabis Act or Ryan's Law, would require specified types of health care facilities to allow a terminally ill patient's use of medicinal cannabis within the health care facility, subject to certain restrictions. The bill would require a patient to provide the health care facility with a copy of their medical marijuana card or written documentation that the use of medicinal cannabis is recommended by a physician. The bill would require a health care facility to reasonably restrict the manner in which a patient stores and uses medicinal cannabis to ensure the safety of other patients, guests, and employees of the health care facility, compliance with other state laws, and the safe operations of the health care facility. The bill would provide that compliance with the bill would not be a condition for obtaining, retaining, or renewing a license as a health care facility. The bill would require that health care facilities permitting patient use of medical cannabis comply with other drug and medication requirements, as specified, and would make those facilities subject to enforcement actions by the State Department of Public Health. The bill would authorize a health care facility to suspend compliance with these provisions if a regulatory agency, the United States Department of Justice, or the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services takes specified actions, including initiating an enforcement action against a health care facility related to the facility's compliance with a state-regulated medical marijuana program.
The State Housing Law, among other things, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations for the protection of the health, safety, and general welfare of the occupant and the public relating to specified residential structures, as provided, which apply throughout the state. Existing law requires the housing or building department of every city or county, or the health department if there is no building department, to enforce within its jurisdiction the provisions of the State Housing Law, building standards, and the other rules and regulations adopted by the department pertaining to the maintenance, sanitation, ventilation, use, or occupancy of apartment houses, hotels, or dwellings. A violation of the State Housing Law, or of the building standards or rules and regulations adopted pursuant to that law, is a misdemeanor. This bill would require that a mixed-income multifamily structure provide the same access to the common entrances, common areas, and amenities of the structure to occupants of the affordable housing units in the structure as is provided to occupants of the market-rate housing units. The bill would also prohibit a mixed-income multifamily structure from isolating the affordable housing units within the structure to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. The bill would state that these additions do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law. By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to enforcement of the State Housing Law, the violation of which is a 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(1) Existing law, the Public Employees' Retirement Law (PERL) , establishes the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) , which provides a defined benefit to members of the system, based on final compensation, credited service, and age at retirement, subject to certain variations. PERL authorizes a public agency to contract to make its employees members of PERS and prescribes a process for this. PERS is administered by its board of administration, which is responsible for correcting errors and omissions in the administration of the system and the payment of benefits. Existing law requires the board to correct all actions taken as a result of errors or omissions of the state or a contracting agency, in accordance with certain procedures. The California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) generally requires a public retirement system, as defined, to modify its plan or plans to comply with the act. PEPRA, among other things, establishes new defined benefit formulas and caps on pensionable compensation. This bill would establish new procedures under PERL for cases in which PERS determines that the benefits of a member or annuitant are, or would be, based on disallowed compensation that conflicts with PEPRA and other specified laws and thus impermissible under PERL. The bill would also apply these procedures retroactively to determinations made on or after January 1, 2017, if an appeal has been filed and the employee member, survivor, or beneficiary has not exhausted their administrative or legal remedies. At the threshold, after determining that compensation for an employee member reported by the state, school employer, or a contracting agency is disallowed, the bill would require the applicable employer to discontinue the reporting of the disallowed compensation. The bill would require that contributions made on the disallowed compensation, for active members, be credited against future contributions on behalf of the state, school employer, or contracting agency that reported the disallowed compensation and would require that the state, school employer, or contracting agency return to the member any contributions paid by the member or on the member's behalf. With respect to retired members, survivors, or beneficiaries whose benefits are based on disallowed final compensation, the bill would require PERS to adjust the benefit to reflect the exclusion of the disallowed compensation and provide that contributions made on the disallowed compensation be credited against future contributions on behalf of the employer entity that reported the disallowed compensation. Additionally, if specified conditions are met, the bill would require the employing entity to pay to the system the full cost of any overpayment of the prior paid benefit. The bill would further require the employing entity to pay a penalty of 20% of the amount calculated as a lump sum of the actuarial equivalent present value representing the difference between the monthly allowance that was based on the disallowed compensation and the adjusted monthly allowance, as specified, for the duration that allowance is projected to be paid by the system to the retired member, survivor, or beneficiary. Under the bill, the employing entity would be required to pay 90% of that penalty as restitution to the affected retired member, survivor, or beneficiary who was impacted by disallowed compensation and 10% of the penalty to the system. The bill would require the system to provide certain notices in this regard. This bill would require the system to provide confidential contact information of retired members, and their survivors and beneficiaries, who are affected by these provisions to the relevant employing entities, the confidentiality of which the entities would be required to maintain. The bill would authorize the state, a school employer, as specified, or a contracting agency, as applicable, to submit to the system an additional compensation item proposed to be included or contained in a memorandum of understanding or collective bargaining agreement on and after January 1, 2022, that is intended to form the basis of a pension benefit calculation in order for PERS to review its consistency with PEPRA and other laws, as specified, and would require PERS to provide guidance regarding the review within 90 days, as specified. The bill would require PERS to publish notices regarding proposed compensation language submitted to the system for review and the guidance given by the system that is connected with it. For educational entities that participate in the system, the final responsibility for funding payments to the system and to retired members, survivors, and beneficiaries would belong to the educational entity that is the actual employer of the employee. The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations. (2) 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 requires the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to post on its internet website a list of port drayage motor carriers with unsatisfied court judgments, tax assessments, tax liens, or any order, decision, or award finding that the port drayage motor carrier has engaged in illegal conduct including failure to pay wages, imposing unlawful expenses on employees, and other labor violations. Existing law prohibits the division from placing the information on the internet website until the period for all judicial appeals has expired. Existing law requires the division to remove a posting within 15 business days after the division determines there has been payment or settlement of the unsatisfied judgment, as specified. Existing law, except as specified, imposes joint and several liability on the port drayage motor carrier and any customer that obtained port drayage services after the date the port drayage motor carrier appeared on the division's list for all civil legal responsibility and liability owed to a port drayage driver, including unpaid wages, unreimbursed expenses, and damages and penalties that are due, as specified. This bill would require the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to post the information for a port drayage motor carrier that is a prior offender, as defined, with a subsequent judgment, ruling, citation, order, decision, or award finding a violation of a labor or employment law or regulation, even if all periods for appeals have not expired. The bill would require the division to post the information only if it is provided to the division in a format acceptable to the division. This bill would require the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, if it receives notice that a prior offender that is listed on the division's internet webpage has subsequently prevailed on appeal, to remove the posting for the prior offender within 15 business days after determining that there remains no other basis upon which to retain the prior offender's information on the internet webpage. The bill would also require the division to remove a posting within 15 business days after the division determines, first, that there has been payment or settlement of the unsatisfied judgment or any other financial liabilities and, second, that the port drayage motor carrier has submitted certification, under penalty of perjury, that all identified violations have been remedied or abated and, after the division issues certain regulations, sufficient documentation that all violations have been remedied or sufficiently abated, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would expand the liability of a customer of a listed port drayage motor carrier to also include the civil legal responsibility and civil liability owed to the state for port drayage services obtained after the date the motor carrier appeared on the prior offender list. The bill would add, in this regard, potential responsibility and liability for employment tax assessments issued by the state and civil liability stemming from the motor carrier's failure to comply with applicable health and safety laws, rules, or regulations. 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 makes garment manufacturers liable for guaranteeing payment of wages to employees of their contractors. This bill would expand the definition of garment manufacturing to include dyeing, altering a garment's design, and affixing a label to a garment. The bill would prohibit any employee engaged in the performance of garment manufacturing to be paid by the piece or unit, or by the piece rate, except as specified. The bill would impose compensatory damages of $200 per employee against a garment manufacturer or contractor, payable to the employee, for each pay period in which each employee is paid by the piece rate. This bill would define "brand guarantor" for purposes of these provisions as a person contracting for the performance of garment manufacturing, as specified, regardless of whether the person with whom they contract performs manufacturing operations or hires a contractor or subcontractor to perform manufacturing operations. This bill would specify that a garment manufacturer, contractor, or brand guarantor who contracts with another person for the performance of garment manufacturing operations shares joint and several liability with any manufacturer and contractor for the full amount of unpaid wages, and any other compensation, including interest, due to any and all employees who performed manufacturing operations for any violation, attorney's fees, and civil penalties, as specified. The bill would also make garment manufacturers and contractors liable for the full amount of damages and penalties for any violation, as specified. This bill would create a rebuttable presumption in a claim filed with the Labor Commissioner to recover unpaid wages and associated penalties, if an employee has provided the Labor Commissioner with labels or other information that the commissioner finds credible relating to the identity of any brand guarantor or garment manufacturer that the brand guarantor or garment manufacturer is liable with the contractor for any amounts found to be due to the employee. The bill would also give the Labor Commissioner authority to enforce these provisions by issuing a stop order or a citation. Existing law requires every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing to keep certain records for 3 years, including, among other things, contract worksheets indicating the price per unit agreed to between the contractor and manufacturer. This bill would also require every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing and brand guarantors to keep all contracts, invoices, purchase orders, work orders, style or cut sheets, and any other documentation pursuant to which garment manufacturing work was, or is being, performed for 4 years. Existing law requires the commissioner to deposit $75 of each garment manufacturer's registration fee into one separate account to be disbursed by the commissioner only to persons determined by the commissioner to have been damaged by the failure to pay wages and benefits by a garment manufacturer, contractor, or subcontractor. This bill would instead require these funds to be disbursed by the commissioner only to persons determined by the commissioner to have been damaged by the failure to pay wages and benefits by a garment manufacturer, brand guarantor, or contractor. Existing law precludes any employer, or other person or entity, who may be liable for a violation of any provision of the Labor Code from introducing as evidence, in an administrative proceeding contesting a citation or writ proceeding under specified provisions, books, documents, or records that are not provided pursuant to a duly served written request by the Labor Commissioner within the time the Labor Commissioner requests those books, documents, or records be produced, as specified. This bill would expand those provisions to also preclude the introduction of records not provided to the Labor Commissioner, as specified, in an administrative proceeding under the provisions described above relating to the payment of wages for the performance of garment manufacturing.
Existing law gives the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, within the Department of Industrial Relations, the power, jurisdiction, and supervision over every employment and place of employment in this state, which is necessary to adequately enforce and administer all laws requiring that employment and places of employment be safe, and requiring the protection of the life, safety, and health of every employee in that employment or place of employment. Existing law requires the division to issue a citation for a violation of provisions relating to the spraying of asbestos, or any standard, rule, order, or regulation established pursuant to specified provisions of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 if, upon inspection or investigation, the division believes that an employer has committed a violation. Existing law imposes penalties of certain maximum amounts depending on whether the violation is serious, uncorrected, or willful or repeated. Existing law authorizes the division to seek an injunction restraining certain uses or operations of employment that constitute a serious menace to the lives or safety of persons, as specified. Existing law establishes requirements for a prima facie showing by the division to warrant, in the discretion of the court, the granting of a temporary restraining order. This bill would create a rebuttable presumption that a violation committed by an employer that has multiple worksites is enterprise-wide if the employer has a written policy or procedure that violates these provisions, except as specified, or the division has evidence of a pattern or practice of the same violation committed by that employer involving more than one of the employer's worksites. The bill would authorize the division to issue an enterprise-wide citation requiring enterprise-wide abatement if the employer fails to rebut such a presumption. The bill would impose specified requirements for a stay of abatement pending appeal of an enterprise-wide citation. The bill would subject an enterprise-wide violation to the same penalty provision as willful or repeated violations. This bill would require the division to issue a citation for an egregious violation, as defined, for each willful and egregious violation determined by the division, as provided. The bill, except as specified, would require each instance of an employee exposed to that violation to be considered a separate violation for purposes of the issuance of fines and penalties. The bill would exempt certain state agencies from the rebuttable presumption, enterprise-wide citation, and egregious violation citation provisions. The bill would authorize the division, in the investigation of the policies and practices of an employer or a related employer entity, to issue a subpoena if the employer or the related employer entity fails to promptly provide the requested information, and to enforce the subpoena if the employer or the related employer entity fails to provide the requested information within a reasonable period of time. The bill would authorize the division to seek an injunction restraining certain uses or operations of employment if it has grounds to issue a citation, as specified. The bill would expand grounds for granting a temporary restraining order to include grounds to issue a citation, as prescribed.
Existing law, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, requires employers to comply with certain standards ensuring healthy and safe working conditions, as specified. Existing law charges the Division of Occupational Safety and Health within the Department of Industrial Relations with enforcement of the act, subject to oversight by the Chief of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (chief) . This bill would require the chief or a representative of the chief to convene an advisory committee, comprised of no fewer than 13 and no more than 18 individuals, including representatives from specified groups, to make recommendations, in consultation with other specified divisions and entities, to the department or Legislature to protect the health and safety of household domestic service employees, and develop voluntary industry-specific occupational health and safety guidance for the purpose of educating household domestic service employees and employers, as specified. The bill would require the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to post the report to its internet website and submit a copy to the Legislature, as specified, no later than January 1, 2023.
(1) Existing law establishes a minimum wage for all industries and makes it a crime to pay an employee less than the minimum wage fixed by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Existing law, however, permits the commission to issue an employee who is mentally or physically disabled, or both, a special license authorizing the employment of the licensee for a period not to exceed one year from date of issue, at a wage less than the minimum wage. Existing law requires the commission to fix a special minimum wage for the licensee, which may be renewed on a yearly basis. This bill would prohibit new special licenses from being issued after January 1, 2022. The bill would permit a license to only be renewed for existing licenseholders who meet requisite benchmarks. The bill would make the above-described provision authorizing a lesser minimum wage for an employee who is mentally or physically disabled inoperative on January 1, 2025, or when the multiyear phaseout plan as described below is released, whichever is later. The bill, commencing on the later of January 1, 2025, or when the plan is released, would prohibit an employee with a disability from being paid less than the legal minimum wage or the applicable local minimum wage ordinance, whichever is higher. The bill would require the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, in consultation with stakeholders and relevant state agencies, to develop a multiyear phaseout plan with stakeholder involvement, by January 1, 2023, to pay any employee with a disability, as defined, by January 1, 2025, no less than the state minimum wage otherwise required. The bill would require the multiyear phaseout plan to contain specified components, including benchmarks and desired outcomes for each year of the plan and a list of resources to ensure employees with disabilities can receive services based on their needs. The bill would require the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, in developing the multiyear phaseout plan, to engage with and seek input from people with developmental disabilities who have experience working for subminimum wage and various stakeholder organizations. The bill would require the State Council on Developmental Disabilities to release and publicly post on its internet website a report by January 1, 2023. The bill would also require the State Council on Developmental Disabilities to submit a copy of the report on its multiyear phaseout plan to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature for review on or before January 1, 2023. The bill would further require the State Council on Developmental Disabilities to publicly post on its internet website and submit to the Legislature an annual report beginning on January 1, 2024, as specified, detailing specified information about the multiyear phaseout plan. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Under existing law, the Industrial Welfare Commission is authorized to issue a special license to a nonprofit organization such as a sheltered workshop or rehabilitation facility to permit the employment of disabled employees who the commission has determined meet the requirements for paying less than the state minimum wage without requiring individual licenses of those employees. Existing law requires the commission to fix a special minimum wage for those employees, subject to renewal, as specified. This bill would repeal that provision on January 1, 2025. This bill would also include related legislative findings about the need to afford equal pay and equal treatment in the workplace to all Californians, including those with disabilities. 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.