Existing law, the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, or California Family Rights Act (CFRA) , makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, as defined, to refuse to grant a request by an eligible employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period (1) for reason of a child born to, adopted by, or placed for foster care with, the employee, (2) to care for the employee's parent or spouse who has a serious health condition, as defined, or (3) because the employee is suffering from a serious health condition rendering him or her unable to perform the functions of the job. Existing law prohibits an employer from refusing to allow a female employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take a leave for a reasonable time of up to 4 months before returning to work. Existing law also prohibits an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes that leave, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from refusing to allow an employee with more than 12 months of service with the employer, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, and who works at a worksite in which the employer employs at least 20 employees within 75 miles, to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of the child's birth, adoption, or foster care placement. The bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes this leave. The bill would allow the employer to recover coverage costs under specific circumstances. The bill would provide that it would not apply to an employee who is subject to both specified state law regarding family care and medical leave, and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Under the bill, if the employer employs both parents and they are entitled to leave pursuant to this bill for the same birth, adoption, or foster care placement, the parents' mandated parental leave would be capped at the amount granted to an employee by the bill. The bill would authorize the employer to grant simultaneous leave to these parents. This bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to hire, or from discharging, fining, suspending, expelling, or discriminating against, an individual for exercising the right to parental leave provided by this bill or giving information or testimony as to his or her own parental leave, or another person's parental leave, in an inquiry or proceeding related to rights guaranteed under this bill. The bill would additionally prohibit an employer from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this bill. The bill would require the Fair Employment and Housing Council, to the extent that state regulations interpreting CFRA are within the scope of, and not inconsistent with the bill or with other state law, to incorporate those regulations by reference to govern leave under the bill. Under existing law, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing is authorized to provide mediation services to parties involved in actions under its jurisdiction. This bill, until January 1, 2020, would require the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, upon receiving funding from the Legislature, to create a parental leave mediation pilot program, as specified. Under the pilot program, within 60 days of receipt of a right-to-sue notice, an employer may request all parties to participate in the department's Mediation Division Program. If the employer makes such a request, the bill would prohibit an employee from pursuing any civil action under these provisions until the mediation is complete, as defined, which would include an employee's election not to participate in mediation. The bill would provide that the employee's statute of limitations would be tolled during the course of the mediation, as specified.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law generally subjects any person under 18 years of age who commits a crime to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court. Under existing law, juvenile court proceedings to declare a minor a ward of the court are commenced by the filing of a petition by the probation officer, the district attorney after consultation with the probation officer, or the prosecuting attorney, as specified. Existing law requires the juvenile court to order the petition of a minor who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court dismissed if the minor satisfactorily completes a term of probation or an informal program of supervision, as specified, and requires the court to seal all records pertaining to that dismissed petition in the custody of the juvenile court and in the custody of law enforcement agencies, the probation department, or the Department of Justice in accordance with a specified procedure. Existing law prohibits the court from sealing a record or dismissing a petition under this provision if the petition was sustained based on the commission of any specified serious or violent offense, including murder, that was committed when the individual was 14 years of age or older unless the finding on that offense was dismissed or was reduced to a lesser offense that is not listed among those specified offenses. (2) Existing law generally authorizes a person who is the subject of a juvenile court record, or the county probation officer, to petition the court to seal his or her records, including records of arrest, relating to the person's case in the custody of the juvenile court and the probation officer and any other agencies, including law enforcement agencies and public officials. Existing law authorizes the petition to be filed 5 years or more after the jurisdiction of the juvenile court has terminated as to the person or, if no petition was filed, 5 years or more after the person was cited to appear before a probation officer or was taken before a probation officer or law enforcement officer, or, at any time after the person reaches 18 years of age. (3) Existing law, as amended by Proposition 21 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, prohibits a court from ordering the person's records sealed, as specified, in any case in which the person has been found by the juvenile court to have committed any specified serious or violent offense, including murder, when he or she was 14 years of age or older. Proposition 21 allows the Legislature to amend its provisions by the enactment of a statute passed in each house by a 23 vote. This bill would expand the exception described in (1) to require the court to seal a record or dismiss a petition under the provisions described in (1) if the finding on that serious or violent offense was reduced to a misdemeanor. This bill would, except as specified, repeal the limitation of Proposition 21 on the authority of the court to order the sealing of records of those persons who were found to have committed those serious or violent offenses after attaining 14 years of age, and instead would only authorize the filing of a petition to seal the record or records relating to those serious or violent offenses committed after attaining 14 years of age that resulted in the adjudication of wardship by the juvenile court under specified limited circumstances. The bill would authorize certain individuals to access, inspect, or utilize a record relating to those specified serious or violent offenses that has been sealed pursuant to the provisions described in (2) in a subsequent proceeding against the person for specified purposes, or to meet other statutory or constitutional obligations to disclose exculpatory evidence, as specified, and would prohibit the access, inspection, or utilization of a sealed record under those provisions from being deemed an unsealing of the record. The bill would provide that the above-mentioned provisions on sealing records in specified limited circumstances and the authority to access sealed records relating to those serious or violent offenses that were committed after attaining 14 years of age do not apply in cases in which the offense was dismissed or reduced to a misdemeanor by the court. By expanding the duties imposed on local agencies relating to sealing of juvenile records, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 786 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 529 to be operative only if this bill and AB 529 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) 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 requires the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole hearing for offenders sentenced to state prison who committed specified crimes when they were under 23 years of age. Existing law, as added by initiative statute, imposes a term of confinement in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole or, at the discretion of the court, 25 years to life, on a defendant who was 16 years of age or older and under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime for which he or she was found guilty of murder in the first degree, if specified special circumstances have been found true. Existing case law prohibits a juvenile convicted of a homicide offense from being sentenced to life in prison without parole absent consideration of the juvenile's special circumstances in light of the principles and purposes of juvenile sentencing. This bill would make a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed before the person had attained 18 years of age and for which a life sentence without the possibility of parole has been imposed eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 25th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing. The bill would require the board to complete, by July 1, 2020, all hearings for individuals who are or will be entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing by these provisions before July 1, 2020. The bill would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 3051 and 4801 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 1308 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1308 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law authorizes a peace officer to take a minor into temporary custody when that officer has reasonable cause to believe that the minor has committed a crime or violated an order of the juvenile court. In these circumstances, existing law requires the peace officer to advise the minor that anything he or she says can be used against him or her, that he or she has the right to remain silent, that he or she has the right to have counsel present during any interrogation, and that he or she has the right to have counsel appointed if he or she is unable to afford counsel. This bill would require that a youth 15 years of age or younger consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference prior to a custodial interrogation and before waiving any of the above-specified rights. The bill would prohibit a waiver of the consultation. The bill would require the court to consider the effect of the failure to comply with the above-specified requirement in adjudicating the admissibility of statements of a youth 15 years of age or younger made during or after a custodial interrogation. The bill would clarify that these provisions do not apply to the admissibility of statements of a youth 15 years of age or younger if certain criteria are met. This bill would require the Governor, or his or designee, to convene a panel of at least 7 experts, as specified, no later than January 1, 2023. The bill would require the panel to review, and to examine the effects and outcomes related to, the implementation of the above-described requirements, as specified, and to provide, no later than April 1, 2024, certain information to the Legislature and the Governor. This bill would repeal these requirements on January 1, 2025.
Existing law authorizes a person who was arrested and has successfully completed a prefiling diversion program, a person who has successfully completed a specified drug diversion program, and a person who has successfully completed a specified deferred entry of judgment program to petition the court to seal his or her arrest records. Existing law also specifies that, with regards to arrests that resulted in the defendant participating in certain other deferred entry of judgment programs, the arrest upon which the judgment was deferred shall be deemed not to have occurred. This bill would also authorize a person who has suffered an arrest that did not result in a conviction, as specified, to petition the court to have his or her arrest sealed. Under the bill, a person would be ineligible for this relief under specified circumstances, including if he or she may still be charged with any offense upon which the arrest was based. The bill would require the Judicial Council to furnish forms to be utilized by a person applying to have his or her arrest sealed, as specified. The bill would provide that a person who is eligible to have his or her arrest sealed is entitled, as a matter of right, to that sealing unless the person has been charged with certain crimes, including, among others, domestic violence if the petitioner's record demonstrates a pattern of domestic violence arrests, convictions, or both, in which case the person may obtain sealing of his or her arrest only upon a showing that the sealing would serve the interests of justice. The bill would specify that the petitioner has the initial burden of proof to show that he or she is either entitled to have his or her arrest sealed as a matter of right or that sealing would serve the interests of justice and, if the court finds that petitioner has satisfied his or her burden of proof, then the burden of proof would shift to the respondent prosecuting attorney. The bill would require, if the petition is granted, the court to issue a written ruling and order that, among other things, states that the arrest is deemed not to have occurred and that, except as otherwise provided, the petitioner is released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the arrest. The bill would also require the court to furnish a disposition report to the Department of Justice, as specified. The bill would prohibit, if an arrest is sealed pursuant to the above provisions or pursuant to the specified provisions of existing law that authorize the sealing of arrest records after successfully completing a prefiling diversion program, a specified drug diversion program, or a specified deferred entry of judgment program, or if an arrest is deemed to have never occurred after a defendant participates in certain other deferred entry of judgment programs, the disclosure of the arrest, or information about the arrest that is contained in other records, from being disclosed to any person or entity, except as specified. The bill would subject a person or entity to a civil penalty if he or she disseminates information relating to a sealed arrest, unless he or she is specifically authorized to disseminate that information. Because the bill would impose new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain state summary criminal history information, as defined, and requires the Attorney General to furnish state summary criminal history information to specified entities and individuals if needed in the course of their duties. The bill would prohibit the department from disclosing, as part of the state summary criminal history information furnished to specified entities, that an individual was granted relief pursuant to the provisions above describing having an arrest sealed. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1000.4 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 208 to be operative only if this bill and AB 208 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 11105 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 420, AB 1418, and this bill to be operative only if this bill, SB 420, and AB 1418 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, 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.
Existing law imposes on a person convicted of a violation of, or of conspiracy to violate, specified crimes relating to controlled substances a sentence enhancement to include a full, separate, and consecutive 3-year term for each prior conviction of, or for each prior conviction of conspiracy to violate, specified controlled substances crimes, including possession for sale and purchase for sale of opiates, opium derivatives, and hallucinogenic substances. This bill would instead limit the above sentence enhancement to only be based on each prior conviction of, or on each prior conviction of conspiracy to violate, the crime of using a minor in the commission of offenses involving specified controlled substances.
(1) Existing law provides that the board of supervisors of any county may authorize the correctional administrator to offer a program under which inmates committed to a county jail or other county correctional facility or granted probation, or inmates participating in a work furlough program, may voluntarily participate or involuntarily be placed in a home detention program during their sentence in lieu of confinement in a county jail or other county correctional facility or program. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors to prescribe a program administrative fee and an application fee for this program. This bill would make those fees payable only by adult participants of that home detention program who are over 21 years of age and under the jurisdiction of the criminal court. (2) Existing law provides that upon conviction of certain offenses involving controlled substances, or upon a finding that a minor is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court by reason of committing one of those certain offenses, the court, when recommended by the probation officer, shall require, as a condition of probation, that the defendant or the minor not use or be under the influence of any controlled substance and submit to drug and substance abuse testing as directed by the probation officer, unless the court makes a finding that this condition would not serve the interests of justice. Existing law requires the court to order the defendant or the minor to pay a reasonable fee, not to exceed the actual cost of the testing, if the defendant or the minor is required to submit to testing and has the financial ability to pay all or part of those costs. This bill would instead require the court to order a defendant to pay that reasonable fee only if the defendant is an adult who is over 21 years of age and under the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The bill would also delete the provision requiring the court to charge the minor that reasonable fee. (3) Existing law requires specified orders providing for the care and custody of a ward, dependent child, or other minor person, as specified, to direct that the whole expense of support and maintenance of the minor, up to the amount of $20 per month, be paid from the county treasury. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of each county to establish a maximum amount that the court may order the county to pay for that support and maintenance and authorizes the court to direct that an amount up to that maximum amount be paid. This bill, for purposes of a ward, a minor person concerning whom a petition has been filed to declare the person a ward of the juvenile court, or a minor who is the subject of a certain program of supervision undertaken by the probation department and who is temporarily placed out of his or her home, as specified, would delete the $20 maximum on support and maintenance payments and delete the authorization of the county board of supervisors to establish a maximum amount that the court may order the county to pay. (4) Existing law generally imposes liability on a parent, spouse, or other person liable for the support of a ward, dependent child, or other minor person, as applicable, for certain costs, including the reasonable costs of transporting the minor to a juvenile facility and for the costs of the minor's food, shelter, and care at the juvenile facility when the minor has been held in temporary custody, as specified, and certain other circumstances are applicable; the reasonable costs of supporting the minor when he or she is placed, detained in, or committed to, any institution or other place pursuant to specified provisions of law or pursuant to an order of the juvenile court; the cost of an alcohol or drug education program as designated by the court; the cost, to the county or the court, of the legal services rendered to the minor by an attorney pursuant to an order of the juvenile court; the cost of probation supervision, home supervision, or electronic surveillance of the minor, pursuant to the order of the juvenile court; the cost of a service program administered by an agency upon delivery or referral of the minor by an officer; the cost of specified services rendered to the minor in lieu of a petition being filed to adjudge the minor a ward of the juvenile court; and other related costs. Existing law authorizes the probation department and the child welfare services department in a county to create a jointly written protocol, as specified, to allow the 2 departments to jointly assess and produce a recommendation that the child be designated as a dual status child, allowing the child to be simultaneously a dependent child and a ward of the court. This bill, for purposes of a minor who is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court, who is placed on probation without being adjudged a ward, who is the subject of a petition that has been filed to adjudge the minor a ward, or who is the subject of a certain program of supervision undertaken by the probation department, as applicable, would repeal the above-described provisions imposing liability for the specified costs and would make other conforming changes. The bill would specify that those provisions apply to a minor who is designated as a dual status child, for purposes of the dependency jurisdiction only and not for purposes of the delinquency jurisdiction. (5) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a minor who, while under the supervision of a probation officer, removes his or her electronic monitor without authority and who, for more than 48 hours, violates the terms and conditions of his or her probation relating to the proper use of the electronic monitor. Existing law provides, if an electronic monitor is damaged or discarded while in the possession of the minor, that restitution for the cost of replacing the unit may be ordered as part of the punishment. Existing law requires that this liability be limited by the financial ability of the person or persons ordered to pay the restitution and requires that the person or persons, upon request, be entitled to an evaluation and determination of ability to pay under specified provisions. This bill would remove the requirement that a request be made in order for the person or persons to be entitled to the evaluation and determination described above. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 903.45 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 976 to be operative only if this bill and AB 976 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Under the existing Swimming Pool Safety Act, upon the issuance of a building permit for construction of a new swimming pool or spa, or the remodeling of an existing pool or spa, at a private, single-family home, the pool or spa is required to be equipped with at least one of 7 drowning prevention safety features. The existing act requires the local building code official to inspect and approve the drowning safety prevention devices before the issuance of a final approval for the completion of permitted construction or remodeling work. The existing act does not apply to any pool within the jurisdiction of any political subdivision that adopts an ordinance for swimming pools, as specified. This bill would instead require, when a building permit is issued, that the pool or spa be equipped with at least 2 of 7 specified drowning prevention safety features. The bill would revise the characteristics of some of those safety features. The bill would also delete the exemption from the act of political subdivisions that adopt ordinances for swimming pools. By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law defines terms related to paid home inspections in connection with the transfer of real property, establishes a standard of care for home inspectors, and prohibits certain inspections in which the inspector or the inspector's employer, as specified, has a financial interest. This bill would, as part of the definition of home inspection for the transfer of real property, specify that an appropriate inspection of real property with a swimming pool or spa would include noninvasive physical examination of the pool or spa and dwelling for the purpose of identifying which, if any, of the 7 specified drowning prevention safety features the pool or spa is equipped. The bill would also require that the information be included in the home inspection report, as specified. 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.
Existing law authorizes cities and counties, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in the county not exceed 2%. This bill would authorize the Counties of Alameda and Santa Clara to impose a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes at a rate of no more than 0.5% or 0.625%, respectively, and the City of Santa Fe Springs to impose a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes at a rate of no more than 1% that, in combination with other transactions and use taxes, would exceed the above-described combined rate limit of 2%, if either county or the city adopts an ordinance proposing the tax and the ordinance proposing the tax is approved by the voters, subject to applicable voter approval requirements, as specified. The bill would repeal this authorization on December 31, 2022, for either county or the city if an ordinance proposing the tax has not been approved by that date in that county or city. The bill would also make a technical conforming correction. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Alameda and Santa Clara and the City of Santa Fe Springs.
(1) Existing law generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution. The Charge Ahead California Initiative, administered by the state board, includes goals of, among other things, placing in service at least 1,000,000 zero-emission and near-zero-emission vehicles by January 1, 2023, and increasing access for disadvantaged, low-income, and moderate-income communities and consumers to zero-emission and near-zero-emission vehicles. Existing law establishes the Air Quality Improvement Program, administered by the state board, to fund projects related to, among other things, the reduction of criteria air pollutants and improvement of air quality. Pursuant to the Air Quality Improvement Program, the state board has established the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project to promote the production and use of zero-emission vehicles and the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project to provide vouchers to help California fleets purchase hybrid and zero-emission trucks and buses. This bill would require the state board, in consultation with stakeholders, to review all programs affecting the adoption of light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles in the state and report to the Legislature no later than July 1, 2019, recommendations for increasing the use of those vehicles for vehicle fleet use and on a general-use basis in the state, as specified. (2) Existing law requires the Secretary of Government Operations, in consultation with the Department of General Services and other specified state agencies, to develop, implement, and submit to the Legislature and the Governor a plan to improve the overall state vehicle fleet's use of alternative fuels, synthetic lubricants, and fuel-efficient vehicles by reducing or displacing the consumption of petroleum products by the state fleet when compared to the 2003 consumption level, based on a specified schedule. This bill would require the Department of General Services, beginning no later than the 2024–25 fiscal year, to ensure at least 50% of the light-duty vehicles purchased for the state vehicle fleet each fiscal year are zero-emission vehicles, except as specified.