UPDATE ON PENDING EMPLOYER SPECIFIC BILLS
We are more than halfway through this year’s Legislative Session and we have already seen a lot of action on our priority bills. What follows is an update on some of the key employer related bills that we have been working closely with the California Chamber of Commerce Employer Coalition (CEC). These are bills that would impact all employers in California.
ACTIVE BILLS
AB 2011 (Bauer-Kahan D) Unlawful employment practices: small employer family leave mediation program: reproductive loss leave. In 2020 the Department of Fair Employment and Housing established a small employer mediation pilot program. All family leave claims brought against small employers with five to nineteen employees could be sent to mediation, instead of directly to court. AB 2011 will make the Civil Rights Department small employer family leave mediation program permanent.
- Position: SUPPORT with CEC
AB 2288 (Kalra D) Labor Code enforcement: private civil actions. Expansion of PAGA: AB 2288 expands Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) to include additional remedies, which will incentivize further abuse of PAGA by trial attorneys.
- Position: OPPOSE with CEC
AB 2499 (Schiavo D) Unlawful employment practices: discrimination for time off or status as a victim of violence. AB 2499 is a significant leave expansion. This bill expands a 12-week crime-related leave by allowing 12 weeks of leave for matters regardless of urgency or safety concerns, such as: meeting with a financial planner, enrolling in financial benefits, arranging for modifications to technology, such as a phone or vehicle, and searching for a residence for someone other than the employee.
- Position: OPPOSE with CEC
AB 2738 (Rivas, Luz D) Labor Code: alternative enforcement: occupational safety. This bill would eliminate a court’s discretion under current law to award a prevailing plaintiff fees and costs, including expert witness fees and costs, and instead requires the court to award them for Labor Code enforcement by public prosecutors.
- Position: OPPOSE with CEC
AB 3048 (Lowenthal D) California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018: opt-out preference signal. AB 3048 would effectively mandate browsers to include a universal opt-out preference signal. Additionally, prohibits businesses from developing or maintaining a browser that does not include a setting that enables consumers to send an opt-out preference signal to other businesses that the consumer interacts with through the browser, pursuant to regulations adopted by the California Privacy Protection Agency.
- Position: OPPOSE with CEC
SB 1116 (Portantino D) Unemployment insurance: trade disputes: eligibility for benefits. This bill would require employers to subsidize un-related strikers and would create long-term costs for both the States’ Unemployment Insurance Fund and businesses.
- Position: OPPOSE with CEC
SB 1141 (Niello R) Mediation: amount in controversy. Under current law, courts may order a case to mediation where the amount in controversy is less than $50,000. That amount was established in 1993 and has not been adjusted since for inflation. SB 1141 would increase the amount to $150,000.
- Position: SUPPORT with CEC
SB 1205 (Laird D) Workers’ compensation: medical benefits. This bill would increase costs and administrative friction in California’s workers’ compensation system by broadly expanding the payment of temporary disability benefits would substantially complicate the administration of claims by requiring workers and claims administrators to accurately track the dates of medical appointments, the specific amount of time an injured worker missed work for each appointment.
- Position: OPPOSE with CEC
DEAD BILLS
AB 2200 (Kalra; D-San Jose): Would have forced all Californians into a new untested state government health plan, with no ability to opt out, while eliminating Medicare for California seniors and increased taxes at least $250 billion a year on workers, income, jobs, goods and services.
AB 2751 (Haney; D-San Francisco): Would have prohibited any employee working for an employer of any size from contacting another employee outside of their normal work hours except in very narrow circumstances and would have subjected employers to costly litigation for any dispute as to whether the communication was permissible.