Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary schools in the state, and authorizes local educational agencies throughout the state to operate schools and provide instruction to pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive. Existing law provides that no monetary liability and no cause of action arises against specified entities for certain conduct, including, except for specified damages, for a hospital for any action taken upon the recommendation of its medical staff, or against any other person or organization for any action taken, or restriction imposed, which is required to be reported, if that action or restriction is reported, as specified. This bill would require, during the COVID-19 pandemic, as defined, the governing board of a local educational agency, as defined, or its designee, to establish health and safety policies and procedures for operating programs and facilities in a manner consistent with applicable federal, state, and local requirements and COVID-19-related guidelines published by the State Department of Public Health. The bill would require the governing boards of local educational agencies, or their designees, to ensure that reasonable efforts are undertaken to implement those policies and procedures. The bill would exempt a local educational agency, and its officers or employees, that meet these requirements from monetary liability and damages for injury relating to COVID-19 infection, transmission, or specified policies and procedures established pursuant to the bill, any condition in existence because of the COVID-19 pandemic, or any act or omission by the local educational agency, its officers, or its employees in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as provided, with specified exceptions. By imposing new duties on local educational agencies, 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, 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 the statutory provisions noted above.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires an authorized officer who makes an arrest relating to the felony offense of dogfighting, as specified, and authorizes an authorized officer who makes an arrest for any of certain offenses relating to animal abuse, including a misdemeanor offense proscribing animal fighting, as specified, to lawfully take possession of the animals. If ownership of the seized animals or birds cannot be determined after reasonable efforts, existing law authorizes the officer or other person designated as custodian of the animals or birds, after holding the animals and birds for a period of not less than 10 days, to petition the magistrate for permission to humanely euthanize or otherwise dispose of the animals or birds. Existing law requires the petition to be published in a newspaper of general circulation. This bill would instead require the petition to be published in a newspaper, online or in print, of general circulation, a social media outlet belonging to a law enforcement agency or a county or appropriate local governmental entity, or a law enforcement internet website.
Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) , creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Existing law establishes that, for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. This test is commonly known as the "ABC" test. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of these provisions. Existing law instead provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the multifactor test adopted in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. Existing law provides that the addition of the ABC test to the Labor Code does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law with regard to wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission and violations of the Labor Code relating to wage orders. Existing law also provides that insofar as the application of the above exemptions would relieve an employer from liability, those provisions apply retroactively to existing claims and actions to the maximum extent permitted by law. Existing law provides that, notwithstanding the above retroactivity language, other provisions of this law apply to work performed on or after January 1, 2020. This bill would delete the above language providing that the addition of the ABC test to the Labor Code does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law. The bill would also provide that the holding in Dynamex does not apply to any work performed prior to April 30, 2018.
Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Under the ABC test, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of the ABC test described above. Existing law, instead, provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the multifactor test previously established in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. This bill would repeal these existing ABC test provisions and instead makes them operative on January 1, 2022.
Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) , creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of specified wage orders. Existing law establishes that, for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. This test is commonly known as the "ABC" test. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of Dynamex and these provisions. Existing law instead provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the test adopted in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. This bill would repeal these statutory provisions. The bill would, instead, establish a new test that, for purposes of specific provisions of the Labor Code governing the relationship of employer and employees, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor, unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is (1) free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact, determined by a preponderance of factors, with no single factor of control being determinative, and either that (2) the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, or the work performed is outside the place of business of the hiring entity, or the worker is responsible for the costs of the place of the business where the work is performed, or that (3) the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed. The bill would apply the new test to all pending claims, whether in civil court or as an administrative action, filed on or after January 1, 2018, that relate to the classification of workers in this state. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA authorizes specified entities to file and maintain with a court an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an act of a public agency on grounds of noncompliance with the requirements of CEQA. This bill would require a plaintiff or petitioner, in an action or proceeding brought pursuant to CEQA, to disclose the identity of a person or entity that contributes $1,000 or more, as specified, toward the plaintiff's or petitioner's costs of the action or proceeding. The bill also would require the plaintiff or petitioner to identify any pecuniary or business interest related to the project or issues involved in the action or proceeding of those persons or entities. The bill would authorize a court to, upon request of the plaintiff or petitioner, withhold public disclosure of a contributor if the court finds that the public interest in keeping that information confidential clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The bill would provide that a failure to comply with these requirements may be grounds for dismissal of the action or proceeding by the court. The bill would also authorize a court to use the disclosed information to determine whether the financial burden of private enforcement supports the award of attorney's fees.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA requires a court, in an action or proceeding brought challenging any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA and a finding by the court of such noncompliance, to enter an order that includes one or more of specified mandates, one of which may be a mandate to suspend any or all specific project activity or activities, as provided. CEQA provides that, except as otherwise specified, it is not intended to limit the equitable powers of the courts. This bill would prohibit additional or subsequent CEQA actions or proceedings if an action or proceeding under CEQA has already been instituted against a housing development project, as defined, and a trial court has issued a peremptory writ of mandate, as prescribed. The bill would require that any claims regarding the lead agency's noncompliance with the peremptory writ be raised during the public comment period provided in connection with the lead agency's action to comply with the peremptory writ and when the lead agency makes a return to the peremptory writ. The bill would limit those claims to the adequacy of the lead agency's remedial compliance efforts in response to the peremptory writ, and would prohibit the court from considering issues, claims, or complaints under CEQA that were not raised in the original action or proceeding or that were not resolved by the trial court in favor of the petitioners in the original action or proceeding from which the peremptory writ was issued. The bill would also prohibit subsequent actions or proceedings under CEQA against a housing development project if that project has already been subject to suit under CEQA and a court has entered a final judgment in that action or proceeding. The bill would specify that it does not extend any statute of limitations.
Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) , creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of specified wage orders. Existing law establishes that, for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. This test is commonly known as the "ABC" test. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of Dynamex and these provisions. Existing law instead provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the test adopted in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. This bill would expand the above-described exemptions to also include licensed geologists, geophysicists, land surveyors, contractors, engineers, and pest control operators, when those persons are performing work on forested landscapes, as specified.
Existing law designates particular days each year as having special significance, and encourages all public schools and educational institutions to observe those days and to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on those days. This bill would designate and set apart September 11 each year as September 11th Remembrance Day, a day having special significance. The bill would encourage, when September 11th Remembrance Day falls on a schoolday, each public elementary and secondary school to observe a moment of silence at an appropriate time while school is in session.
Existing law allows a person who was arrested or convicted of a nonviolent offense while they were a victim of human trafficking to petition the court for vacatur relief. Existing law requires the petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the arrest and conviction was the direct result of being a victim of human trafficking. This bill would prohibit a court from refusing to hear the petition on the basis of the petitioner's outstanding fines and fees or the petitioners's failure to meet the conditions of probation. With the exception of restitution, the bill would require that the collection of fines imposed as a result of a nonviolent offense that is the subject of the petition be stayed while the petition is pending.