Existing law prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, unless the employer demonstrates that specific, reasonably applied factors account for the entire wage differential. Existing law authorizes an employee paid lesser wages in violation of this prohibition to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and authorizes the employee, the division, or the Department of Industrial Relations to commence a civil action for the wages the employee was deprived of because of the violation, interest on those wages, and liquidated damages. Under existing law, an employer or other person who violates or causes a violation of that prohibition, or who reduces the wages of any employee in order to comply with that prohibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would also prohibit an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of another race or ethnicity for substantially similar work, as specified above. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 1197.5 of the Labor Code proposed by AB 1676 that would become operative only if AB 1676 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Sponsored bills
Existing law subjects an employer who is, or wishes to become, a contractor with the state for public works, or for goods or services, to various nondiscrimination requirements. Existing law authorizes requiring an employer to submit a nondiscrimination program to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing for approval and certification prior to becoming a contractor or subcontractor with the state, as well as requiring the provision of periodic reports of contractor or subcontractor compliance with that program. Existing law authorizes a contractor or subcontractor to file an affirmative action, equal employment, or nondiscrimination program subject to review and approval by a federal compliance agency with the department in lieu of that nondiscrimination program. This bill would enact the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act of 2016. The bill would require an employer with a contract with the state that amounts to $50,000 or more that either is required by federal regulations to submit an EEO-1 report to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or has 100 or more employees in the state to submit a nondiscrimination program to the department and to submit periodic reports of its compliance with that program, no more than annually, on a schedule to be determined by the department. The bill would require the department to make these programs and reports available to the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. The bill would authorize the department to require approval and certification of the program. The bill would permit the department to require other employers to comply with those program and report submission requirements. The bill would require the department to define an employee for these purposes. The bill would require the nondiscrimination program to include policies and procedures designed to ensure equal employment opportunities for all applicants and employees, a description of employment selection procedures, and employee compensation data, as specified. The bill would specify that a contractor or subcontractor may submit an EEO-1 report subject to review by the EEOC with the department in lieu of the nondiscrimination program. The bill would specify that its provisions are not to be construed to negate certain exemptions established by regulation that predate its enactment or to require the department to reevaluate the validity of these exemptions, as specified. The bill would make a statement of legislative findings.
Existing law defines rape and spousal rape as an act of sexual intercourse accomplished under specified circumstances indicating a lack of consent, force, or duress, as specified. Existing law additionally makes various acts, including sodomy and oral copulation without consent or sexual intercourse with a minor, unlawful as sexual assault. This bill would state the findings of the Legislature that all forms of nonconsensual sexual assault may be considered rape for purposes of the gravity of the offense and the support of survivors and would state that this is declarative of existing law.
Existing law requires the Office of Emergency Services to establish a protocol for the examination and treatment of victims of sexual assault and attempted sexual assault, including child molestation, and the collection and preservation of related evidence. Existing law provides failure to comply with this protocol does not constitute grounds to exclude evidence and prohibits a judge from instructing the trier of fact in a case that less weight be given to the evidence based on failure to comply. Existing law also establishes one hospital-based training center to train medical personnel on how to perform medical evidentiary examinations for victims of child abuse or neglect, sexual assault, and other similar crimes. This bill would require the Department of Justice's Bureau of Forensic Services, the California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors, and the California Association of Criminalists to work collaboratively with public crime laboratories, in conjunction with the California Clinical Forensic Medical Training Center, to develop a standardized sexual assault forensic medical evidence kit, as specified, to be used by all California jurisdictions. The bill would encourage those entities to collaborate and establish the basic components for a kit by January 30, 2018, and would require guidelines pertaining to the use of the kit's components to be distributed throughout the state by May 30, 2019. The bill would require every local and state agency to be responsible for its own costs in purchasing a kit. The bill would also provide that failure to use a kit does not constitute grounds to exclude evidence and prohibits a judge from instructing the trier of fact in a case that less weight be given to the evidence based on failure to comply.
Existing law requires the State Board of Education to develop guidelines that school districts may use in the development of certain teacher evaluation procedures and to distribute those guidelines to every school district. Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that governing boards of school districts establish a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the performance of all certificated personnel within each school district of the state. Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study and to evaluate and assess certificated employee performance on a continuing basis as it reasonably relates to specified matters, including the progress of pupils, as provided, instructional techniques and strategies, and adherence to curricular objectives. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to develop and adopt additional evaluation and assessment guidelines or criteria. This bill would specifically authorize and encourage the evaluation and assessment of certificated employee performance as it reasonably relates to the progress of pupils, instructional techniques and strategies, and adherence to curricular objectives to include certain things, as provided. The bill would also provide that it shall not be construed to require the state board to revise its guidelines, to limit a school district governing board's authority to adopt additional guidelines or criteria, or to limit the right of certificated employees or their exclusive representative to bargain concerning evaluation procedures.
Existing law, the Outdoor Advertising Act, provides for the regulation by the Department of Transportation of advertising displays, as defined, within view of public highways. The act regulates the placement of off-premises advertising displays along highways that generally advertise business conducted or services rendered or goods produced or sold at a location other than the property upon which the display is located. A violation of the act is a crime. The act also provides that an advertising display advertising businesses and activities developed within the boundary limits of, and as a part of, an individual redevelopment agency project, as those project boundaries existed on December 29, 2011, may remain and be considered an on-premises display, until January 1, 2023, if the advertising display meets specified criteria. The act further authorizes, on and after January 1, 2022, the applicable city, county, or city and county to request from the department an extension for good cause, as specified, beyond January 1, 2023, not to exceed the expiration of the redevelopment project area. This bill would authorize under similar provisions the advertising of businesses or activities operating outside a redevelopment project area but within the boundaries of the City of Inglewood. The bill would impose certain duties on the City of Inglewood regarding advertising displays. By increasing the level of service provided by the city, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also make findings and declarations as to the need for a special statute relating to the City of Inglewood. 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 these statutory provisions.
Existing federal law provides for tax-qualified retirement plans and individual retirement accounts or individual retirement annuities by which private citizens may save money for retirement. Existing law, the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust Act, establishes the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, administered by the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board, contingent on specified funding and interest criteria being met. Existing law prescribes the composition of the board and its duties and provides that it acts as trustee in entering contracts and accepting moneys, among other things. Existing law prohibits the board from permitting enrollment in the program until enactment of a statute expressing legislative approval of program implementation. The program requires specified eligible employers, as defined, to offer a payroll deposit retirement savings arrangement and requires eligible employees, as defined, who do not opt out of the program, to contribute a portion of their salary or wages to a retirement savings account in the program, as specified. Existing law requires contributions from the wages of employees participating in the program to be deposited in the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust, which is continuously appropriated and administered by the board. Existing law authorizes the board to adjust the employee contribution amount between 2% and 4%, inclusive, of the employee's annual salary or wages, as specified. This bill would express legislative approval of the program and its implementation on January 1, 2017. The bill would require the board, prior to opening the program for enrollment, to make a report to the Governor and Legislature affirming that certain requirements have been met, including that the program is structured to meet a United States Department of Labor regulation, as specified. The bill would require the board to design and implement the program and would prescribe certain parameters that the board is to consider and utilize in establishing the design. The bill would require the board, for up to 3 years following implementation, to establish managed accounts invested in United States Treasury securities, in myRAs, as defined, or in similar investments and would make conforming changes in this connection in provisions related to mitigating risk in the investment portfolio and payment of the costs of administration. The bill would require the board, after this period, to annually prepare and adopt a written statement of investment policy containing specified elements. The bill would require the board to consider the statement and any changes in the investment policy at a public hearing. The bill would specify that funding and first year administrative costs may be appropriated in the annual budget from the General Fund and would require the board to repay the amount appropriated, plus interest, as specified. On and after 6 years from the date the program is implemented, the bill would prohibit expenditures for the purpose of paying operative costs and administering the trust from exceeding 1% of the total program fund. The bill would revise the purposes for which administrative and program funds may be expended. The bill would provide that investment policy decisions, including asset allocation and investment options, are entrusted to the board as a fiduciary, and would revise certain principles that the board is to consider in connection with investment policy. The bill would exempt the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust from specified provisions regarding the qualification of securities for sale. The bill would make various changes to existing duties of the board, including those regarding dissemination of information and the entities with which the board is to collaborate and cooperate. The bill would require the Treasurer to appoint an executive director of the board, to serve at its pleasure, and to determine the duties of the office and its compensation. The bill would eliminate the duty of the board to ensure that insurance or some other mechanism is in place to protect the value of individual accounts and would eliminate the requirement to secure private underwriting and reinsurance, as specified. The bill would repeal the duty of the board to conduct an initial market analysis to determine if the condition for the implementation of the program can be met and associated provisions. The bill would eliminate the authority of the board to establish certain investment options. This bill would require eligible employers that do not offer specified retirement plans or accounts to have a payroll deposit retirement savings arrangement so that employees may participate in the program within specified time periods based on the number of eligible employees that the employer has, and the bill would authorize the board to extend these time periods. The bill would provide that employers retain the right at all times to set up and offer their own qualified retirement plans. The bill would define an employer of a provider of in-home supportive services as an employer if a specified determination and certification are made and would require the state or a county that makes a direct payment to a provider to assume obligations regarding retirement savings accounts, including payroll deposit IRA arrangements offered under the program. The bill would authorize the board to adjust the employee contribution amount described above up to 5% and would prescribe other limits on increasing employee contributions. The bill would authorize the board to make annual, automatic escalations of employee contributions subject to certain limitations, including that the employee may opt out, as specified. By authorizing the board to increase moneys that are deposited into the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust, which is continuously appropriated, the bill would make an appropriation. The bill would authorize the board to adopt regulations to implement the program and would provide that the adoption, amendment, repeal, or readoption of a regulation authorized by this section is deemed to address an emergency. The bill would make various conforming changes.
Existing law provides specified requirements in awarding certain public contracts. This bill would authorize the Governor to execute games support contracts, not to exceed a specified amount, in connection with the site selection process for the City of Los Angeles to become the host for the 2024 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, that accept financial liability to provide the state security for amounts owed by the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) , as specified, and for any financial deficit accruing to the OCOG as a result of the hosting of the games by the endorsing municipality, as defined. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations that, among other things, the endorsing municipality has developed a self-sufficient bid for financing the games.
Existing law, the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 35 at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election (CASE Act) , requires a person who is subject to the Sex Offender Registration Act (the Act) to list any and all Internet identifiers established or used by the person and any and all Internet service providers used by the person on his or her sex offender registration. The CASE Act requires a person subject to sex offender registration to send written notice of any addition of, or change to, an Internet identifier or Internet service provider to the law enforcement agency with which he or she is currently registered within 24 hours. Existing case law currently enjoins the application of the above provisions of the CASE Act through the imposition of a preliminary injunction on the grounds that these provisions violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The CASE Act allows its provisions to be amended by a statute in furtherance of its objectives passed in each house of the Legislature by a majority vote of the membership. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to amend the CASE Act to further its objectives. The bill would delete the requirement that a person subject to sex offender registration list on his or her sex offender registration all Internet service providers used by him or her. The bill would require a person who is convicted of a felony on or after January 1, 2017, that requires registration pursuant to the Act, and one or more specified circumstances, including that the person used the Internet to collect any private information to identify a victim of the crime to further the commission of the crime, to register his or her Internet identifiers, as defined, and to send written notice to the law enforcement agency or agencies with which he or she is currently registered within 30 days of establishing or changing an Internet identifier, as specified. The bill would require a law enforcement agency to which this information has been submitted to make the information available to the Department of Justice. The bill would require a designated law enforcement entity to only use an Internet identifier submitted pursuant to these provisions, or to release that Internet identifier to another law enforcement entity, for the purpose of investigating a sex-related crime, a kidnapping, or human trafficking. The bill would prohibit a designated law enforcement entity from disclosing or authorizing persons or entities to disclose an Internet identifier submitted pursuant to these provisions to the public or other persons, except as required by court order. Existing law makes a person who is required to register under the Act based on a misdemeanor conviction or juvenile adjudication who willfully violates any requirement of the act guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year. This bill would make a person who fails to provide his or her Internet identifiers, as required by the bill, regardless of the offense upon which the duty to register is based, guilty of a misdemeanor punishable in a county jail not exceeding 6 months. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes. 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. 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.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act contains various provisions regulating the application for, the issuance of, the suspension of, and the conditions imposed upon alcoholic beverage licenses by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. That act imposes additional regulations on the sale of alcoholic beverages and creates penalties for violations of those regulations. This bill would require the department to revoke the license of any licensee who manufactures, distributes, or sells powdered alcohol, as provided. This bill would prohibit the possession, purchase, sale, offer for sale, distribution, manufacture, or use of powdered alcohol and would make the specified violation of these provisions punishable as an infraction. This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. 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.