Sen. María Elena Durazo

(1) Under existing law, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, if a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes or attempts to interfere, by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, is authorized to bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. Existing law also authorizes an action brought by the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, to seek a civil penalty of $25,000. Existing law also allows an individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights has been interfered with to prosecute a civil action for damages on their own behalf. The bill would eliminate certain immunity provisions for peace officers and custodial officers, or public entities employing peace officers or custodial officers sued under the act. (2) Existing laws defines persons who are peace officers and the entities authorized to appoint them. Existing law requires certain minimum training requirements for peace officers including the completion of a basic training course, as specified. Existing law prescribes certain minimum standards for a person to be appointed as a peace officer, including moral character and physical and mental condition, and certain disqualifying factors for a person to be employed as a peace officer, including a felony conviction. This bill would prohibit a person who has been convicted of a felony, as specified, from regaining eligibility for peace officer employment based upon any later order of the court setting aside, vacating, withdrawing, expunging or otherwise dismissing or reversing the conviction, unless the court finds the person to be factually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted at the time of entry of the order. The bill would disqualify a person from being employed as a peace officer if that person has been convicted of, or has been adjudicated in an administrative, military, or civil judicial process as having committed, a violation of certain specified crimes against public justice, including the falsification of records, bribery, or perjury. The bill would also disqualify any person who has been certified as a peace officer by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and has surrendered that certification or had that certification revoked by the commission, or has been denied certification. The bill would disqualify any person previously employed in law enforcement in any state or United States territory or by the federal government, whose name is listed in the national decertification index, or any other database designated by the federal government, or who engaged in serious misconduct that would have resulted in their certification being revoked in this state. The bill would require a law enforcement agency employing certain peace officers to employ only individuals with a current, valid certification or pending certification. (3) Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to set minimum standards for the recruitment and training of peace officers and to develop training courses and curriculum. Existing law authorizes the commission to establish a professional certificate program that awards basic, intermediate, advanced, supervisory, management, and executive certificates on the basis of a combination of training, education, experience, and other prerequisites, for the purpose of fostering the professionalization, education, and experience necessary to adequately accomplish the general police service duties performed by peace officers. Existing law authorizes the commission to cancel a certificate that was awarded in error or obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, but otherwise prohibits the commission from canceling a certificate that has properly been issued. This bill would require the Department of Justice to provide the commission with necessary disqualifying felony and misdemeanor conviction data for all persons known by the department to be current or former peace officers, as specified. The bill would grant the commission the power to investigate and determine the fitness of any person to serve as a peace officer in the state. The bill would direct the commission to issue or deny certification, which includes a basic certificate or proof of eligibility, to a peace officer in accordance with specified criteria. The bill would require the commission to issue a proof of eligibility or basic certificate, as specified, to certain persons employed as a peace officer on January 1, 2022, who do not otherwise possess a certificate. The bill would declare certificates or proof of eligibility awarded by the commission to be property of the commission and would authorize the commission to suspend or revoke a proof of eligibility or certificate on specified grounds, including the use of excessive force, sexual assault, making a false arrest, or participating in a law enforcement gang, as defined. The bill would create the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Division within the commission to review investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies and to conduct additional investigations into serious misconduct that may provide grounds for suspension or revocation of a peace officer's certification, as specified. The bill would require the division to review grounds for decertification and make findings as to whether grounds for action against an officer's certification exist. The bill would require the division to notify the officer subject to decertification of their findings and allow the officer to request review. The bill would also create the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board with 9 members to be appointed as specified. The bill would require the board to hold public meetings to review the findings after an investigation made by the division and to make a recommendation to the commission. The bill would require the commission to review the recommendation made by the board based on whether there is evidence that reasonably supports the board's conclusion that misconduct has been established and, if action is to be taken against an officer's certification, return the determination to the division to commence formal proceedings consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would require the commission to notify the employing agency and the district attorney of the county in which the officer is employed of this determination, as specified. The bill would make all records related to the revocation of a peace officer's certification public and would require that records of an investigation be retained for 30 years. The bill would require an agency employing peace officers to report to the commission the employment, appointment, or separation from employment of a peace officer, any complaint, charge, allegation, or investigation into the conduct of a peace officer that could render the officer subject to suspension or revocation, findings by civil oversight entities, and civil judgements that could affect the officer's certification. In case of a separation from employment or appointment, the bill would require each agency to execute an affidavit-of-separation form adopted by the commission describing the reason for separation. The bill would require the affidavit to be signed under penalty of perjury. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the board to report annually on the activities of the division, board, and commission, relating to the certification program, including the number of applications for certification, the events reported, the number of investigations conducted, and the number of certificates surrendered or revoked. By imposing new requirements on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 832.7 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 16 to be operative only if this bill and SB 16 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.

Existing law, the State Housing Law, a violation of which is a crime, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes a city or county to designate and charge a specified department or officer with the enforcement of the State Housing Law, the building standards published in the California Building Standards Code, or any other rules and regulations adopted pursuant to the State Housing Law for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. Existing law deems a building, portion of a building, or premises on which a building is located to be a substandard building if any one of specified conditions exists to the extent that it endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or its occupants. Existing law deems a building, portion of a building, or premises on which a building is located to be in violation of the State Housing Law if it contains lead hazards, as specified, that are likely to endanger the health of the public or the occupants. This bill would, beginning July 1, 2022, require a city or county that receives a complaint of a substandard building or a lead hazard violation, as described above, from a tenant, resident, or occupant, or an agent of a tenant, resident, or occupant, except as specified, to inspect the building, portion of the building intended for human occupancy, or premises of the building, document the lead hazard violations that would be discovered based upon a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property, and identify any building, portion of a building intended for human occupancy, or premises on which such a building is located that is determined to be substandard, as applicable. The bill would require the city or county, as applicable, to advise the owner or operator of each violation and of each action that is required to be taken to remedy the violation and to schedule a reinspection to verify correction of the violations. The bill would require a city or county to provide free, certified copies of an inspection report and citations issued, if any, to the complaining tenant, resident, occupant, or agent, and to all potentially affected tenants, residents, occupants, or the agents of those individuals, as specified. The bill would prohibit the inspection or the report from being subject to any unreasonable conditions, as specified, and prohibit a city, county, or city and county from collecting a fee, cost, or charge from a property owner or property owner's agent for any inspection of, or any inspection report about, that owner's or agent's property that is conducted or issued pursuant to the bill's provisions, unless the inspection reveals one or more material lead hazard violations or deems and declares the property substandard, as described above. The bill would prohibit a city or county from unreasonably refusing to communicate with a tenant, resident, occupant, or agent regarding a matter covered by this bill. By imposing new duties on local government officials, 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 specified reasons.

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, 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.

Existing law, including the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the Ralph C. Dills Act, the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act, the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act, provisions commonly referred to as the Educational Employment Relations Act, and the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act, among others, regulates the labor relations of the state, the courts, and specified local public agencies and their employees. Existing law requires these public employers to provide certain labor representatives with the names and home addresses of newly hired employees, as well as their job titles, departments, work locations, telephone numbers, and personal email addresses, within 30 days of hire or by the first pay period of the month following hire. Existing law also requires the public employers to provide this information for all employees in a bargaining unit at least every 120 days, except as specified. Existing law requires the Public Employment Relations Board to have jurisdiction over violations of these requirements and to have certain powers and duties related to enforcement of these requirements, except as specified. This bill, commencing July 1, 2022, would authorize an exclusive representative to file a charge of an unfair labor practice with the board, as specified, alleging a violation of the above-described requirements only if specified conditions are met, including that the exclusive representative gives written notice of the alleged violation and that the public employer fails to cure the violation, as specified. The bill would limit a public employer's opportunity to cure certain violations. This bill would subject a violator to a penalty, not to exceed $10,000, to be determined by the board based on specified criteria, and would require the penalty to be deposited in the General Fund. The bill would require the board to award a party who prevails in these circumstances attorney's fees and costs, as specified. The bill would require a superior court to award the board attorney's fees when the board initiates court proceedings to enforce a board order, or is required to defend a decision of the board involving these provisions after a party seeks judicial review, if the board is the prevailing party.

Existing law establishes the Board of State and Community Corrections to promote effective state and local efforts and partnerships in California's adult and juvenile criminal justice system and requires the board to inspect each local detention facility in the state biennially. Existing law requires a privately operated local detention facility responsible for the custody and control of a local prisoner to operate pursuant to a contract with the city, county, or city and county, as appropriate. Existing law requires each contract to include a provision whereby the private agency or entity agrees to operate in compliance with all appropriate state and local building, zoning, health, safety, and fire statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and with specified minimum jail standards established by regulations adopted by the board. Existing law provides that the failure of a privately operated local detention facility to comply with the appropriate health, safety, and fire laws, or with the minimum jail standards adopted by the board may be grounds for the termination of the contract. Under existing law, private detention facilities are generally prohibited, except for those operating pursuant to a valid contract in effect before January 1, 2020, as specified. This bill would require a private detention facility responsible for the custody and control of a prisoner or civil detainee to operate in compliance with these standards and to maintain specified insurance coverages, including general, automobile, and umbrella liability, and workers' compensation. The bill would authorize an insurer providing insurance to consider whether the private detention facility complies with prescribed standards. The bill would exempt identified detention facilities from specified provisions, and would provide that the bill does not create any additional authority or responsibility for the Board of State and Community Corrections and Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as specified. The bill would make provisions of the act severable.

Existing law requires the operator of a private detention facility, as defined, to comply with, and adhere to, the detention standards of care and confinement agreed upon in the facility's contract for operations, as specified. This bill would require a private detention facility operator to comply with, and adhere to, all local and state public health orders and occupational safety and health regulations. The bill would state that its provisions are declaratory of existing law. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing federal law, for purposes of various provisions related to immigration, defines "alien" to mean a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. Existing state law uses the word "alien" on its own and within various other terms to refer to persons in provisions relating to, among other things, education, housing, natural resources, employment, probate, social services, drivers' licenses, firearm permits, service in the state militia, and criminal punishment. This bill would revise those state law provisions to refer instead to those persons using other terms that do not contain the word "alien," including a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. The bill would make other related nonsubstantive changes. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature in enacting this measure to make only nonsubstantive changes, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 7583.23 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 607 and to Section 7596.7 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 830, to be operative only if this bill and the other bill are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 7596.3 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 229 and AB 830, to be operative only if this bill and AB 830, or if this bill, AB 229, and AB 830, are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various responsibilities and duties. The act authorizes the state board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water or where a disadvantaged community is substantially reliant on domestic wells that consistently fail to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. This bill would revise those consolidation provisions, including, among other revisions, authorizing the state board to also order consolidation where a water system serving a disadvantaged community is an at-risk water system, as defined, or where a disadvantaged community is substantially reliant on at-risk domestic wells, as defined. This bill would require the state board, before ordering consolidation or extension of service, to consult with any groundwater sustainability agency, as defined, that provides groundwater supply to the affected area. The bill would require the state board to conduct outreach to ratepayers and residents served by an at-risk water system, consider any specified petitions submitted by members of a disadvantaged community served by the at-risk water system, and consider any information provided by the potentially subsumed water system in support of its contention that it is not an at-risk water system before ordering the consolidation of the at-risk water system, as prescribed. The bill would authorize the state board to prioritize consolidation of an at-risk water system that has historically been overburdened by pollution and industrial development or faced other environmental justice hurdles. The bill would require a finding that a disadvantaged community, in whole or in part, is substantially reliant on at-risk domestic wells to be based on specified aquifer maps and inspection or testing of the domestic wells, as provided.