Transportation unions

TopicBill numbersort iconAuthorInterest positionBecame law
An Act to Amend Section 5401 of the Public Utilities Code, Relating to Charter-Party Carriers of Passengers. AB 1360 (2015-2016) TingOpposeNo
The Passenger Charter-Party Carriers’ Act generally requires charges for transportation offered or afforded by a charter-party carrier of passengers to be computed and assessed on a vehicle mileage… More
The Passenger Charter-Party Carriers’ Act generally requires charges for transportation offered or afforded by a charter-party carrier of passengers to be computed and assessed on a vehicle mileage or time-of-use basis, rather than on an individual-fare basis, subject to certain exemptions. This bill would also exempt from these provisions a service operated by a transportation network company or a charter-party carrier of passengers that prearranges a ride among multiple passengers who share the ride in whole or in part, provided that the vehicle seats no more than 7 passengers, not including the driver, is operated by a participating driver, as defined, is not used to provide public transit services or carry passengers over a fixed route, is not used to provide pupil transportation services or public paratransit services, and the fare for each passenger is less than the fare that would be charged to a passenger traveling alone. Hide
An Act to Add Chapter 10 (Commencing with Section 31420) to Division 21 Of, and to Repeal Sections 31422 and 31423 Of, the Public Resources Code, Relating to Coastal Wildlife Protection. AB 1470 (2015-2016) AlejoOpposeNo
Existing law establishes the State Coastal Conservancy and prescribes the membership and functions and duties of the conservancy with respect to preservation of coastal resources in the state. This… More
Existing law establishes the State Coastal Conservancy and prescribes the membership and functions and duties of the conservancy with respect to preservation of coastal resources in the state. This bill would enact the Safe Water and Wildlife Protection Act of 2016, which would require the State Water Resources Control Board, until January 1, 2020, to establish and coordinate the Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force, comprised of specified representatives of state agencies, including the conservancy, in consultation with the Secretary for Environmental Protection, and would prescribe the functions and duties of the task force. The bill would require the task force to review the risks and negative impacts of harmful algal blooms and microcystin pollution and to submit a summary of its findings and recommendations to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, and the secretary on or before January 1, 2019. The act would require the task force, before providing funding recommendations or submitting a summary of findings, to notify the public about ongoing activities and provide opportunities for public review and comment on applied research, projects, and programs. The act would authorize the conservancy, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Wildlife Conservation Board, and the State Water Resources Control Board to enter into contracts and provide grants, upon appropriation, from specified bond funds available under the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, the California Sea Otter Fund, or from other appropriate funds for applied research, projects, and programs, recommended by the task force, aimed at preventing or sustainably mitigating harmful algal blooms, including cyanotoxins and microcystin pollution in the waters of the state. Hide
An Act to Add Chapter 4.8 (Commencing with Section 1080) to Part 3 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 1727 (2015-2016) GonzalezOpposeNo
Existing law relating to employment governs the grant of restraining orders or injunctive relief in labor disputes, as defined. This bill would establish for eligible groups of independent… More
Existing law relating to employment governs the grant of restraining orders or injunctive relief in labor disputes, as defined. This bill would establish for eligible groups of independent contractors the right to organize and negotiate with hosting platforms, and would declare the activity of such a group to be a labor dispute for purposes of injunctive relief. The bill would require a hosting platform to meet and negotiate with a group on specified subjects. The bill would define terms for those purposes. The bill would require that, at the request of the group, a written contract for independent contractor services, entered into on or after the date of the conclusion of negotiations conducted in accordance with the bill, by the hosting platform and a member of that group, incorporate any agreement reached in those negotiations. The bill would require the State Mediation and Conciliation Service to facilitate negotiations, provide mediation services, and investigate any complaint by a group claiming a violation of the negotiation requirement. The bill would require the service, if it finds that there is probable cause to believe a violation has occurred, to bring an action in a specified superior court for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief to remedy the violation. The bill would prohibit a person from penalizing or retaliating against an independent contractor for taking specified actions within the scope of the bill. The bill would authorize an independent contractor or a representative of independent contractors claiming a violation under this bill to bring an action in superior court for prescribed remedies, and would provide for treble damages with regard to lost income for a willful violation.The exercise of any rights established by the bill would not be admissible as evidence that a person is an independent contractor in any judicial or administrative proceeding.The bill would make its provisions severable. Hide
An Act to Add Section 2754 to the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 202 (2015-2016) GonzalezSupportYes
Existing law prescribes comprehensive requirements relating to minimum wages, overtime compensation, and standards for working conditions for the protection of employees applicable to an employment… More
Existing law prescribes comprehensive requirements relating to minimum wages, overtime compensation, and standards for working conditions for the protection of employees applicable to an employment relationship. Existing law requires employers to make specified payments and withholdings from wages paid to employment to, and to file reports of wages and make contributions for unemployment insurances and the employment administering the state’s payroll taxes. Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or, except where based upon applicable security regulations to refuse to hire or employ a person or to refuse to select a person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or discharge a person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of the person. This bill, for purposes of all of the provisions of state law that govern employment, including the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, would require a cheerleader who is utilized by a California-based professional sports team during its exhibitions, events, or games to be deemed an employee. The bill would also require the professional sports team to ensure that the cheerleader is classified as an employee. Because a violation of specified employment laws, including wage and hour laws, that would apply to California-based professional sports teams utilizing cheerleaders would be a crime, 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 5374 Of, and to Add Section 5444 To, the Public Utilities Code, and to Amend Section 1808.1 of the Vehicle Code, Relating to Transportation. AB 24 (2015-2016) NazarianSupportNo
The Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act, with certain exceptions, prohibits a charter-party carrier of passengers from engaging in transportation services subject to regulation by the Public… More
The Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act, with certain exceptions, prohibits a charter-party carrier of passengers from engaging in transportation services subject to regulation by the Public Utilities Commission without obtaining a specified certificate or permit, as appropriate, from the commission, and imposes various other requirements. Existing law requires, as a condition to obtaining a certificate or permit, that the applicant, among other things, participate in a program to regularly check the driving records of all vehicle operators and provide a mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing certification program. A violation of the act is generally a misdemeanor. Existing law defines a transportation network company as an organization, whether a corporation, partnership, sole proprietor, or other form, operating in California that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled platform to connect passengers with drivers using their personal vehicles. This bill would prohibit the commission from issuing or renewing a permit or certificate to a charter-party carrier of passengers unless the applicant, in addition to existing requirements, participates in the Department of Motor Vehicles’ pull-notice system. This bill would specifically require a transportation network company to comply with this provision and to provide for a mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing certification program. The bill would also require a transportation network company to register any vehicle used in the transportation of passengers for compensation with the commission and display an identifying symbol prescribed by the commission on the vehicle. The bill would require that drivers hired or initially retained by a transportation network company on or after January 1, 2016, be subject to mandatory drug and alcohol testing prior to employment or retention and that drivers hired or initially retained before January 1, 2016, complete a drug and alcohol test before January 1, 2017. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 51 of the Civil Code, Relating to Civil Rights. AB 2667 (2015-2016) ThurmondSupportNo
The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to full and equal accommodations in all business establishments regardless of their sex, race,… More
The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to full and equal accommodations in all business establishments regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. This bill would require a waiver of a legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, the Attorney General or any other public prosecutor, or law enforcement agency, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or any other governmental entity, to be knowing and voluntary, in writing, and expressly not made as a condition of entering into a contract for goods or services or as a condition of providing or receiving goods and services. The bill, among other things, would require a person who seeks to enforce a waiver of any legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of the act to have the burden of proving that the waiver was knowing and voluntary and not made as a condition of the contract or of providing or receiving the goods or services. The bill would provide that, with certain exceptions, it applies to any agreement to waive a legal right, penalty, remedy, forum, or procedure for a violation of the act, including an agreement to accept private arbitration, entered into, altered, modified, renewed, or extended on or after January 1, 2017. The bill would provide that nothing in these provisions shall prohibit a person from knowingly and voluntarily entering into binding arbitration. The bill also would make findings and declarations. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 17533.7 of the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Advertising. AB 312 (2015-2016) JonesOpposeNo
Existing law makes it unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association to sell, or offer for sale, merchandise that advertises itself as being made or manufactured in the United States when… More
Existing law makes it unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association to sell, or offer for sale, merchandise that advertises itself as being made or manufactured in the United States when any article, unit, or part of the merchandise has been entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the United States. This bill would instead make it unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association to sell, or offer for sale, merchandise that advertises itself as being made or manufactured in the United States unless the merchandise has been all or virtually all made in the Unites States, and provides that “all or virtually all” has the same meaning as a specified policy statement of the Federal Trade Commission. The bill would also state the intent of the Legislature in enacting the bill. Hide
An Act to Add Section 925 to the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 465 (2015-2016) HernandezSupportNo
Existing law declares that negotiation of terms and conditions of labor should result from voluntary agreement between employer and employee. Existing law provides that any person who coerces or… More
Existing law declares that negotiation of terms and conditions of labor should result from voluntary agreement between employer and employee. Existing law provides that any person who coerces or compels any other person to enter into an agreement, written or verbal, not to join or become a member of any labor organization, as a condition of securing employment or continuing in employment, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would prohibit any person from requiring another person, as a condition of employment, to agree to the waiver of any legal right, penalty, forum, or procedure for any employment law violations. The bill would prohibit a person from threatening, retaliating against, or discriminating against another person based on a refusal to agree to such waiver, and would provide that any such waiver required from an employee or potential employee as a condition of employment or continued employment is unconscionable, against public policy, and unenforceable. The bill would require that any waiver of a person’s employment rights, not prohibited by state or federal law, be knowing and voluntary and in writing, and expressly not made as a condition of employment. The bill would provide that a person seeking to enforce a waiver has the burden of proof to show that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. The bill would apply to any waiver agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2016, and would authorize an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing claimant. The bill would except specified self-regulatory organizations and specified employees from the application of its provisions. The bill would provide that its provisions are severable. Hide
An Act to Add Section 511.5 to the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 67 (2015-2016) GonzalezSupportNo
Existing law provides that 8 hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Under existing law, any work in excess of 8 hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek, and… More
Existing law provides that 8 hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Under existing law, any work in excess of 8 hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek, and the first 8 hours worked on the 7th day of work in any one workweek, is required to be compensated at the rate of no less than 112 times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Existing law also provides that hours worked in excess of 12 hours in one day as well as hours worked in excess of 8 hours on any 7th day of work are to be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee. A violation of these overtime wage provisions constitutes a crime. This bill would enact the Double Pay on the Holiday Act of 2016, which would require an employer to pay at least 2 times the regular rate of pay to employees at retail and grocery store establishments, as defined, except employees in specified categories, for work on a family holiday, as defined. The bill would exempt retail food facilities, as defined, from the act unless the retail food facility is a grocery store establishment, or is located within a retail establishment, or is located within a grocery store establishment and primarily sells food for onsite consumption. Because this bill would expand the definition of a crime, it 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Add Chapter 13 (Commencing with Section 108950) to Part 3 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Consumer Product Safety. AB 708 (2015-2016) Jones-SawyerSupportNo
Existing law regulates the labeling and use of various consumer products, including toys and toxic household products. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2017, require the manufacturer of… More
Existing law regulates the labeling and use of various consumer products, including toys and toxic household products. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2017, require the manufacturer of cleaning products for retail sale in this state to disclose each ingredient contained in the product on the manufacturer’s Internet Web site and provide the Internet Web site and page address on the product label, along with a prescribed statement. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 1385.045 Of, to Add Section 1367.245 To, and to Add and Repeal Chapter 9 (Commencing with Section 127675) of Part 2 of Division 107 Of, the Health and Safety Code, and to Amend Section 10181.45 Of, and to Add Section 10123.204 To, the Insurance Code, Relating to Health Care. SB 1010 (2015-2016) HernandezSupportNo
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene Act), provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care… More
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene Act), provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance (DOI). Existing law requires health care service plans and health insurers to file specified rate information with DMHC or DOI, as applicable, for health care service plan contracts or health insurance policies in the individual or small group markets and for health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies in the large group market. This bill would require health care service plans or health insurers that file the above-described rate information to report to DMHC or DOI, on a date no later than the reporting of the rate information, specified cost information regarding covered prescription drugs, including generic drugs, brand name drugs, and specialty drugs dispensed as provided. The information reported would include, but not be limited to, the 25 most frequently prescribed drugs and the 25 most costly drugs by total plan or insurer spending. DMHC and DOI would be required to compile the reported information into a report for the public and legislators that demonstrates the overall impact of drug costs on health care premiums and publish the reports on their Internet Web sites by October 1 of each year. Except for the report, DMHC and DOI would be required to keep confidential all information provided pursuant to these provisions. Because a willful violation of the Knox-Keene Act is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill, effective January 1, 2018, except as provided, would require a manufacturer of a prescription drug to notify in writing state purchasers, health care service plans, health insurers, and pharmacy benefit managers if it is increasing the wholesale acquisition cost of the drug during any 12-month period by 25% or more based upon the wholesale acquisition cost of the drug and pursuant to a specified schedule, or by more than $10,000. The bill, effective January 1, 2018, would require a manufacturer of a prescription drug to notify in writing, 3 days before the commercial availability of the drug, state purchasers, health care service plans, health insurers, and pharmacy benefit managers if it is introducing a new prescription drug to market at a wholesale acquisition cost of $10,000 or more annually or per course of treatment. The bill would require a manufacturer, within 30 days of notification of a price increase, or notification of the introduction to market of a prescription drug that has a wholesale acquisition cost of $10,000 or more annually or per course of treatment, to report specified information regarding the drug price to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and would require a manufacturer who fails to provide the required information to be subject to an administrative penalty of $1,000 per day for every day after the 30-day notification period. The bill would also require a pharmacy benefit manager that receives notice of a price increase consistent with these provisions to provide notice of the price increase to its contracting public and private purchasers, as provided. The bill would define “pricing information,” as specified, would deem it to be confidential information, as specified, would provide that the information is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, and would require or authorize, as specified, other entities to disclose the information under a certain condition. The bill would make the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development the entity charged with implementing and enforcing these provisions and would require that office to publish specified information collected pursuant to these provisions on its Internet Website. The bill would repeal these provisions by January 1, 2022. Existing law requires, for large group health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies, each health care service plan or health insurer to file with DMHC or DOI the weighted average rate increase for all large group benefit designs during the 12-month period ending January 1 of the following calendar year, and to also disclose specified information for the aggregate rate information for the large group market. This bill would add to that disclosure of information for the aggregate rate information for the large group market, the requirement for health care service plans or health insurers to disclose specified information regarding the cost of covered prescription generic drugs but excluding generic specialty drugs, brand name drugs, excluding brand name specialty drugs, and brand name and generic specialty drugs dispensed at a pharmacy, network pharmacy, or mail order pharmacy for outpatient use and regarding the use of a pharmacy benefit manager, as prescribed. 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. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 245.5, 246, and 1182.12 of the Labor Code, Relating to Labor. SB 3 (2015-2016) LenoSupportYes
(1)Under existing law, the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, an employee who, on or after July 1, 2015, works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year… More
(1)Under existing law, the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, an employee who, on or after July 1, 2015, works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days, as specified. Existing law requires an employee to accrue paid sick days at the rate of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked subject to specified use and accrual limitations. For the purposes of the act, an “employee” does not include a provider of in-home supportive services, as described. This bill, on and after July 1, 2018, would entitle a provider of in-home supportive services who works in California for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment to paid sick days, subject to specified full amount of leave time amounts and that rate of accrual. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services, in consultation with stakeholders, to convene a workgroup to implement paid sick leave for in-home supportive services providers and to issue guidance in that regard by December 1, 2017. The bill would authorize the department to implement that paid sick leave without complying with the Administrative Procedure Act. (2)On and after July 1, 2014, existing law requires the minimum wage for all industries to be not less than $9 per hour. On and after January 1, 2016, existing law requires the minimum wage for all industries to be not less than $10 per hour. This bill would require the minimum wage for all industries to not be less than specified amounts to be increased from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2022, inclusive, for employers employing 26 or more employees and from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2023, inclusive, for employers employing 25 or fewer employees, except when the scheduled increases are temporarily suspended by the Governor, based on certain determinations. The bill would also require the Director of Finance, after the last scheduled minimum wage increase, to annually adjust the minimum wage under a specified formula. On or before July 28, 2017, and on or before every July 28 thereafter until the minimum wage is a specified amount for employers employing 26 or more employees, the bill would require the Director of Finance to annually determine, based on certain factors, whether economic conditions can support a scheduled minimum wage increase and certify that determination to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would also require the State Board of Equalization to publish specified retail sales and use tax information on its Internet Web site to be used by the Director of Finance in making that determination. On or before July 28, 2017, and on or before every July 28 thereafter until the minimum wage is a specified amount for employers employing 26 or more employees, in order to ensure that the General Fund can support the next scheduled minimum wage increase, the bill would also require the Director of Finance to annually determine and certify to the Governor and the Legislature whether the General Fund would be in a deficit in the current fiscal year, or in either of the following 2 fiscal years. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 11165 and 11165.1 Of, and to Add Section 11165.4 To, the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Controlled Substances. SB 482 (2015-2016) LaraSupportYes
Existing law classifies certain controlled substances into designated schedules. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation… More
Existing law classifies certain controlled substances into designated schedules. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES) for the electronic monitoring of the prescribing and dispensing of Schedule II, Schedule III, and Schedule IV controlled substances by all practitioners authorized to prescribe, administer, furnish, or dispense these controlled substances. Existing law requires dispensing pharmacies and clinics to report specified information for each prescription of a Schedule II, Schedule III, or Schedule IV controlled substance to the department. This bill would require a health care practitioner authorized to prescribe, order, administer, or furnish a controlled substance to consult the CURES database to review a patient’s controlled substance history no earlier than 24 hours, or the previous business day, before prescribing a Schedule II, Schedule III, or Schedule IV controlled substance to the patient for the first time and at least once every 4 months thereafter if the substance remains part of the treatment of the patient. The bill would exempt a veterinarian and a pharmacist from this requirement. The bill would also exempt a health care practitioner from this requirement under specified circumstances, including, among others, if prescribing, ordering, administering, or furnishing a controlled substance to a patient receiving hospice care, to a patient admitted to a specified facility for use while on facility premises, or to a patient as part of a treatment for a surgical procedure in a specified facility if the quantity of the controlled substance does not exceed a nonrefillable 5-day supply of the controlled substance that is to be used in accordance with the directions for use. The bill would require, if a health care practitioner authorized to prescribe, order, administer, or furnish a controlled substance is not required to consult the CURES database the first time he or she prescribes, orders, administers, or furnishes a controlled substance to a patient pursuant to one of those exemptions, the health care practitioner to consult the CURES database before subsequently prescribing a Schedule II, Schedule III, or Schedule IV controlled substance to the patient and at least once every 4 months thereafter if the substance remains part of the treatment of the patient. This bill would provide that a health care practitioner who fails to consult the CURES database is required to be referred to the appropriate state professional licensing board solely for administrative sanctions, as deemed appropriate by that board. The bill would make the above-mentioned provisions operative 6 months after the Department of Justice certifies that the CURES database is ready for statewide use and that the department has adequate staff, user support, and education, as specified. This bill would also exempt a health care practitioner, pharmacist, and any person acting on behalf of a health care practitioner or pharmacist, when acting with reasonable care and in good faith, from civil or administrative liability arising from any false, incomplete, inaccurate, or misattributed information submitted to, reported by, or relied upon in the CURES database or for any resulting failure of the CURES database to accurately or timely report that information. Existing law requires the operation of the CURES database to comply with all applicable federal and state privacy and security laws and regulations. Existing law authorizes the disclosure of data obtained from the CURES database to agencies and entities only for specified purposes and requires the Department of Justice to establish policies, procedures, and regulations regarding the use, access, disclosure, and security of the information within the CURES database. This bill would authorize a health care practitioner to provide a patient with a copy of the patient’s CURES patient activity report if no additional CURES data is provided. The bill would also prohibit a regulatory board whose licensees do not prescribe, order, administer, furnish, or dispense controlled substances from obtaining data from the CURES database. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 1374.21 Of, and to Add Section 1385.045 To, the Health and Safety Code, and to Amend Section 10199.1 Of, and to Add Section 10181.45 To, the Insurance Code, Relating to Health Care Coverage. SB 546 (2015-2016) LenoSupportYes
Existing law, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), requires the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a process for the annual review of… More
Existing law, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), requires the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a process for the annual review of unreasonable increases in premiums for health insurance coverage in which health insurance issuers submit to the secretary and the relevant state a justification for an unreasonable premium increase prior to implementation of the increase. The PPACA imposes an excise tax on a provider of applicable employer-sponsored health care coverage, if the aggregate cost of that coverage provided to an employee exceeds a specified dollar limit. Existing state law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires a health care service plan or health insurer in the individual, small group, or large group markets to file rate information with the Department of Managed Health Care or the Department of Insurance. For large group plan contracts and policies, existing law requires a plan or insurer to file rate information with the respective department at least 60 days prior to implementing an unreasonable rate increase, as defined in PPACA. Existing law requires the plan or insurer to also disclose specified aggregate data with that rate filing. Existing law authorizes the respective department to review those filings, to report to the Legislature at least quarterly on all unreasonable rate filings, and to post on its Internet Web site a decision that an unreasonable rate increase is not justified or that a rate filing contains inaccurate information. Existing law requires prior notice, as specified, of changes to premium rates or coverage in order for those changes to be effective. This bill would add to the existing rate information requirement to further require large group health care service plans and health insurers to file with the respective department the weighted average rate increase for all large group benefit designs during the 12-month period ending January 1 of the following calendar year. The bill would require the notice of changes to premium rates or coverage for large group health plans and insurance policies to provide additional information regarding whether the rate change is greater than average rate increases approved by the California Health Benefit Exchange or by the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System, or would be subject to the excise tax described above. The bill would require the plan or insurer to file additional aggregate rate information with the respective department on or before October 1, 2016, and annually thereafter. The bill would require the respective department to conduct a public meeting regarding large group rate changes. The bill would require these meetings to occur annually after the respective department has reviewed the large group rate information required to be submitted annually by the plan or insurer, as specified. The bill would authorize a health care service plan or health insurer that exclusively contracts with no more than 2 medical groups to provide or arrange for professional medical services for enrollees or insureds to meet this requirement by disclosing its actual trend experience for the prior year using benefit categories that are the same or similar to those used by other plans or health insurers. Because a willful violation of the bill’s requirements by a health care service plan would be a crime, the 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 230.8 and 233 of the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. SB 579 (2015-2016) JacksonSupportYes
(1)Existing law prohibits an employer who employs 25 or more employees working at the same location from discharging or discriminating against an employee who is a parent, guardian, or grandparent… More
(1)Existing law prohibits an employer who employs 25 or more employees working at the same location from discharging or discriminating against an employee who is a parent, guardian, or grandparent having custody of a child in a licensed child day care facility or in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, for taking off up to 40 hours each year for the purpose of participating in school activities, subject to specified conditions. Existing law requires an employee to provide documentation regarding these activities upon request by an employer and provides remedies to employees discharged, demoted, or in any other manner discriminated against as a result of his or her exercise of this right to take time off. This bill would revise references to a child day care facility to instead refer to a child care provider. The bill would include the addressing of a child care provider emergency or a school emergency, as defined, and the finding, enrolling, or reenrolling of a child in a school or with a child care provider as activities for which a parent having custody of a child shall not be discriminated against or discharged, as described above. The bill would define “parent” for these purposes as a parent, guardian, stepparent, foster parent, or grandparent of, or a person who stands in loco parentis to, a child, thereby extending these protections to an employee who is a stepparent or foster parent or who stands in loco parentis to a child. (2)Existing law requires an employer who provides sick leave for employees to permit an employee to use the employee’s accrued and available sick leave entitlement to attend to the illness of a child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner and prohibits an employer from denying an employee the right to use sick leave or taking specific discriminatory action against an employee for using, or attempting to exercise the right to use, sick leave to attend to such an illness. Existing law defines “sick leave” for these purposes as leave provided for use by the employee during an absence from employment for specified reasons, including, but not limited to, an employee’s inability to perform his or her duties due to illness, injury, or a medical condition of the employee. The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 requires an employer, upon the request of an employee, to provide paid sick days for a victim of domestic violence or the diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition of, or preventive care for, the employee or the employee’s family member, which is defined as including, in addition to the above-described relatives, grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings. This bill would instead require an employer to permit an employee to use sick leave for the purposes specified in the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, would redefine “sick leave” as leave provided for use by the employee during an absence from employment for these purposes, and would prohibit an employer from denying an employee the right to use sick leave or taking specific discriminatory action against an employee for using, or attempting to exercise the right to use, sick leave for these purposes. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 17533.7 of the Business and Professions Code, Relating to False Advertising. SB 633 (2015-2016) HillOpposeYes
Existing law prohibits the sale or offering of sale in the state of any merchandise on which merchandise or on its container appears the words, “Made in U.S.A.,” “Made in America,”… More
Existing law prohibits the sale or offering of sale in the state of any merchandise on which merchandise or on its container appears the words, “Made in U.S.A.,” “Made in America,” “U.S.A.,” or similar words when the merchandise or any article, unit, or part thereof, has been entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the United States. This bill would exempt from the prohibition merchandise made, manufactured, or produced in the United States if either the merchandise has one or more articles, units, or parts from outside the United States if they do not constitute more than 5% of the final wholesale value of the product or the manufacturer makes a specified showing regarding the articles, units, or parts from outside the United States and they do not constitute more than 10% of the final wholesale value of the product. The bill would also not apply to merchandise sold for resale to consumers outside of the state. Merchandise offered or sold outside the state would not be deemed mislabeled if the label conforms to the law of that state or country. Hide
An Act to Add Section 6903 to the Labor Code, Relating to Railroads. SB 730 (2015-2016) WolkSupportYes
The existing Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations and issue orders for railroad safety and requires the Secretary of Homeland… More
The existing Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations and issue orders for railroad safety and requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, when prescribing a security regulation or issuing a security order that affects the safety of railroad operations, to consult with the Secretary of Transportation. The FRSA provides that to the extent practicable, laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety and security are required to be nationally uniform, but authorizes a state to adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security until the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters), or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security matters), prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the state requirement. Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has enforcement authority over specified provisions relating to safeguards on railroads. Under existing law, a violation of those specified provisions is a crime. This bill would prohibit, on and after February 1, 2016, a train or light engine used in connection with the movement of freight, as specified, from being operated unless it has a crew consisting of at least 2 individuals. The bill would authorize the Public Utilities Commission to assess civil penalties against any person who willfully violates this provision, as specified. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 130350.5 Of, to Add Section 130350.7 To, and to Repeal Section 130350.6 Of, the Public Utilities Code, Relating to Transportation. SB 767 (2015-2016) de LeonSupportYes
Existing law authorizes the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to impose, in addition to any other tax that it is authorized to impose, a transactions and use tax at a… More
Existing law authorizes the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to impose, in addition to any other tax that it is authorized to impose, a transactions and use tax at a rate of 0.5% for the funding of specified transportation-related projects and programs, subject to various requirements, including the adoption of an expenditure plan and voter approval. Existing law authorizes the MTA to seek voter approval to extend the transactions and use tax pursuant to an amended ordinance, subject to various requirements, including adoption of an amended expenditure plan that, among other things, updates certain cost estimates and identifies expected completion dates for projects and programs under the previous expenditure plan, and also requires the amended expenditure plan to be included in an updated long range transportation plan, as specified. This bill would delete the above-referenced provisions relative to extension of the transactions and use tax and an amended ordinance and expenditure plan, The bill would instead authorize the MTA to impose an additional transportation transactions and use tax at a maximum rate of 0.5% as long as a specified existing 0.5% transactions and use tax is in effect, and at a maximum rate of 1% thereafter, as specified, for a period of time determined by the MTA, if certain conditions exist and subject to various requirements, including the adoption of an expenditure plan and voter approval, as specified. The Transactions and Use Tax Law limits to 2% the combined rate of all transactions and use taxes imposed in any county, with certain exceptions. This bill would exempt the transactions and use tax authorized by the bill from this limitation. Hide
An Act to Add Section 510.5 to the Labor Code, Relating to Private Employment. SB 878 (2015-2016) LeyvaSupportNo
Existing law governs the relationship between an employer and an employee with regard to hiring, promotion, discipline, wages and hours, working conditions, and administrative and judicial remedies.… More
Existing law governs the relationship between an employer and an employee with regard to hiring, promotion, discipline, wages and hours, working conditions, and administrative and judicial remedies. Existing law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to investigate employee complaints and to conduct a hearing in any action to recover wages, penalties, and other demands for compensation.This bill would require an employer, which includes a grocery store establishment, restaurant, or retail store establishment, to provide its employees with a work schedule at least 7 calendar days prior to the first shift on that work schedule, except as specified. The bill would require an employer, except as specified, to pay its employees modification pay for each previously scheduled shift that the employer cancels or moves to another date or time, for any previously unscheduled shift that the employer requires an employee to work, or for each on-call shift for which an employee is required to be available but is not called in to work that shift. The bill would require an employer to post a poster containing specified information regarding an employee’s right to receive modification pay and would require the Labor Commissioner to create the poster and make it available. The bill would define terms for those purposes, including, among others, a grocery store establishment, restaurant, or retail store establishment.The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce these requirements, including the investigation, mitigation, and relief of violations of these requirements. The bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to impose specified administrative fines for violations and would authorize the commissioner, the Attorney General, an employee or person aggrieved by a violation of these provisions, or an entity a member of which is aggrieved by a violation of these provisions to recover specified civil penalties against an offender who violated these provisions on behalf of the aggrieved, as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.The bill would not apply to certain categories of employees who meet specified requirements. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 1182.12 of the Labor Code, Relating to Wages. AB 10 (2013-2014) AlejoSupportYes
Existing law requires that, on and after January 1, 2008, the minimum wage for all industries be not less than $8.00 per hour. This bill would increase the minimum wage, on and after July 1, 2014, to… More
Existing law requires that, on and after January 1, 2008, the minimum wage for all industries be not less than $8.00 per hour. This bill would increase the minimum wage, on and after July 1, 2014, to not less than $9 per hour. The bill would further increase the minimum wage, on and after January 1, 2016, to not less than $10 per hour. Hide
An Act to Add Chapter 3 (Commencing with Section 3000) to Title 14 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, Relating to Liens. AB 1164 (2013-2014) LowenthalSupportNo
Existing law grants specified persons, including laborers, as defined, who contribute labor, skill, or services to a work of improvement the right to record a mechanic’s lien upon the property so… More
Existing law grants specified persons, including laborers, as defined, who contribute labor, skill, or services to a work of improvement the right to record a mechanic’s lien upon the property so improved. This bill would, with certain exceptions, authorize an employee to record and enforce a wage lien upon real and personal property of an employer, or a property owner, as specified, for wages, other compensation, and related penalties and damages owed the employee. The bill would prescribe requirements relating to the recording and enforcement of the wage lien and for its cancellation and removal. The bill would require a notice of lien on real property to be executed under penalty of perjury. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 7522.02 of the Government Code, Relating to Public Employees’ Retirement, Making an Appropriation Therefor, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately. AB 1222 (2013-2014) BloomSupportYes
The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), among other things, establishes new retirement formulas for employees first employed on or after January 1, 2013, which a public… More
The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), among other things, establishes new retirement formulas for employees first employed on or after January 1, 2013, which a public employer offering a defined benefit pension plan is prohibited from exceeding, requires those employees to contribute a specified percentage of the normal cost of the defined benefit plan, and prohibits public employers from paying an employee’s share of retirement contributions. PEPRA excepts certain retirement systems from its provisions. This bill would except from PEPRA public employees whose collective bargaining rights are subject to specified provisions of federal law until a specified federal district court decision on a certification by the United States Secretary of Labor, or his or her designee, or until January 1, 2015, whichever is sooner. The bill would also provide that if a federal district court upholds the determination of the United States Secretary of Labor, or his or her designee, that application of PEPRA to those public employees precludes certification, those employees are excepted from PEPRA. The bill would authorize the Director of Finance to authorize a loan of up to $26,000,000 from the Public Transportation Account in the State Transportation Fund to be made to local mass transit providers in amounts equal to federal transportation grants not received due to noncertification from the federal Department of Labor, as specified. By providing for loans in the manner specified, this bill would make an appropriation. The bill would prescribe requirements regarding the disbursement of these funds. The bill would require a local transit provider to repay the loan based on the occurrence of certain contingencies or by January 1, 2019. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 3600.5 of the Labor Code, Relating to Workers’ Compensation. AB 1309 (2013-2014) PereaOpposeYes
Existing workers’ compensation law requires employers to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, including medical treatment, for injuries incurred by their employees that arise out of, or… More
Existing workers’ compensation law requires employers to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, including medical treatment, for injuries incurred by their employees that arise out of, or in the course of, employment. Existing law provides that an injury may be either “specific,” occurring as the result of one incident or exposure that causes disability or need for medical treatment, or “cumulative,” occurring as repetitive mentally or physically traumatic activities extending over a period of time, the combined effect of which causes any disability or need for medical treatment. Existing law provides that an employee who has been hired outside of this state and his or her employer are exempt from these provisions while the employee is temporarily within this state doing work for his or her employer if the employer has furnished workers’ compensation insurance coverage under the workers’ compensation insurance or similar laws of a state other than California, as specified. This bill would exempt an employee hired outside of this state and his or her employer from the occupational disease and cumulative injury provisions of this state’s workers’ compensation laws if (1) the employee is a professional athlete, defined, for purposes of these provisions, to include an athlete who is employed at the minor or major league level in the sport of baseball, basketball, football, ice hockey, or soccer, (2) that professional athlete is temporarily within this state doing work for his or her employer, and (3) the employer has furnished workers’ compensation insurance under the laws of the state other than California that covers the professional athlete’s employment while in this state, except as specified. This bill would deem a professional athlete to be temporarily within the state doing work for his or her employer if, during the 365 consecutive days immediately preceding the professional athlete’s last day of work for the employer within the state, the professional athlete performs less than 20% of his or her duty days, as defined, in the state. The bill would also exempt a professional athlete and his or her employer from the occupational disease or cumulative injury provisions of this state’s workers’ compensation laws when all of the professional athlete’s employers in his or her last year of work as a professional athlete are exempt from these provisions unless the professional athlete has, over the course of his or her professional athletic career, (1) worked for 2 or more seasons for a California-based team or teams, as defined, or worked 20% or more of his or her duty days in California or for a California-based team, and, (2) worked for fewer than 7 seasons for any team other than a California-based team. The bill would also state that it is the intent of the Legislature that the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in Wesley Carroll v. Cincinnati Bengals, et al. (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases ____ (ADJ2295331) (WCAB En Banc) be limited to professional athletes, and would include other specified statements of legislative intent. The bill would provide that these changes apply to all pending claims for benefits filed on or after September 15, 2013, as specified. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 2810.5 Of, and to Add Article 1.5 (Commencing with Section 245) to Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 Of, the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 1522 (2013-2014) GonzalezSupportYes
Existing law authorizes employers to provide their employees paid sick leave. This bill would enact the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 to provide that an employee who, on or after… More
Existing law authorizes employers to provide their employees paid sick leave. This bill would enact the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 to provide that an employee who, on or after July 1, 2015, works in California for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days for prescribed purposes, to be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked. An employee would be entitled to use accrued sick days beginning on the 90th day of employment. The bill would authorize an employer to limit an employee’s use of paid sick days to 24 hours or 3 days in each year of employment. The bill would prohibit an employer from discriminating or retaliating against an employee who requests paid sick days. The bill would require employers to satisfy specified posting and notice and recordkeeping requirements. The bill would define terms for those purposes. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce these requirements, including the investigation, mitigation, and relief of violations of these requirements. The bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to impose specified administrative fines for violations and would authorize the commissioner or the Attorney General to recover specified civil penalties against an offender who violated these provisions on behalf of the aggrieved, as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. The bill would not apply to certain categories of employees that meet specified requirements. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 7522.04 and 7522.18 of the Government Code, Relating to Public Employees’ Retirement, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately. AB 160 (2013-2014) AlejoSupportNo
(1)The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), on and after January 1, 2013, requires a public retirement system, as defined, to modify its plan or plans to comply with the… More
(1)The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), on and after January 1, 2013, requires a public retirement system, as defined, to modify its plan or plans to comply with the act, as specified. Among other things, PEPRA prohibits a public employer from offering a defined benefit pension plan exceeding specified retirement formulas, requires new members of public retirement systems to contribute at least a specified amount of the normal cost, as defined, for their defined benefit plans, and prohibits an enhancement of a public employee’s retirement formula or benefit adopted after January 1, 2013, from applying to service performed prior to the operative date of the enhancement. This bill would except from PEPRA, by excepting from the definition of public retirement system, certain multiemployer plans authorized under federal law and retirement plans for public employees whose collective bargaining rights are protected by a specified provision of federal law if a federal agency determines there is a conflict with federal law. (2)PEPRA prohibits a public employer from offering a supplemental defined benefit plan if the public employer did not do so before January 1, 2013, or, if it did, from offering this plan to an additional employee group after that date. This bill would exclude from the definition of a supplemental defined benefit plan for purposes of this prohibition a multiemployer plan, as defined in federal law, pursuant to a collective bargaining or similar agreement.(3)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
An Act to Add and Repeal Section 13084 to the Government Code, to Amend Section 1095 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, and to Add and Repeal Section 11026.5 to the Welfare and Institutions Code, Relating to Public Benefits. AB 1792 (2013-2014) GomezSupportYes
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, and under which qualified low-income persons receive health care benefits. The… More
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, and under which qualified low-income persons receive health care benefits. The Medi-Cal program is governed, in part, by federal Medicaid provisions. This bill would, until January 1, 2020, require the State Department of Health Care Services to annually inform the Employment Development Department of the names and social security numbers of all recipients of the Medi-Cal program. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services to determine the average per individual cost of state and federally funded benefits provided by the Medi-Cal program and inform the Employment Development Department of these costs. The bill would require the Employment Development Department to collaborate with the State Department of Health Care Services and the State Department of Social Services to determine the total average cost of state and federally funded benefits provided to each identified employer’s employees, as specified. The bill would define an employer as an individual or organization that employs 100 or more beneficiaries of the Medi-Cal program. The bill would also require the Department of Finance to, after obtaining specified information from the Employment Development Department, annually transmit to the Legislature and post on the department’s Internet Web site a report no later than the 3rd week of January of each year beginning in 2016 until January 1, 2020, that, among other things, identifies employers that employ 100 or more beneficiaries in the state, as specified. Under existing law, federal nutrition assistance benefits are administered through CalFresh, as specified. The bill would, until January 1, 2020, additionally require the State Department of Social Services to annually determine and provide to the Employment Development Department, the percentage of individuals who are recipients of the Medi-Cal program who are also recipients of the CalFresh program, and the average individual CalFresh benefit for individuals who are members of households in which at least one member is employed. Under existing law, the information obtained in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Code is for the exclusive use and information of the Director of Employment Development in the discharge of his or her duties and is not open to the public. However, existing law permits the use of the information for specified purposes, and allows the director to require reimbursement for direct costs incurred. Existing law provides that a person who knowingly accesses, uses, or discloses this confidential information without authorization is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would, until January 1, 2020, require the Director of Employment Development to permit the use of specified information in his or her possession by the Department of Finance to prepare and submit the above-described report. By requiring this information to be provided to the Department of Finance for these purposes, this bill would expand the crime of unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of this information, and would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against an employee who enrolls in the Medi-Cal program and from refusing to hire a beneficiary for reason of being enrolled in the Medi-Cal program. This bill would prohibit an employer from disclosing to any person or entity that an employee receives or is applying for public benefits, unless authorized by state or federal law. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1095 of the Unemployment Insurance Code proposed by SB 1028 and SB 1141, to be operative if this bill and one or both of the other bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2015, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Add Section 2810.3 to the Labor Code, Relating to Private Employment. AB 1897 (2013-2014) HernandezSupportYes
Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of employment and establishes specified obligations of employers to employees. Existing law prohibits a person or entity from entering into a contract… More
Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of employment and establishes specified obligations of employers to employees. Existing law prohibits a person or entity from entering into a contract for labor or services with a construction, farm labor, garment, janitorial, security guard, or warehouse contractor, if the person or entity knows or should know that the contract or agreement does not include sufficient funds for the contractor to comply with laws or regulations governing the labor or services to be provided. This bill would require a client employer to share with a labor contractor all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for all workers supplied by that labor contractor for the payment of wages and the failure to obtain valid workers’ compensation coverage. The bill would prohibit a client employer from shifting to the labor contractor legal duties or liabilities under workplace safety provisions with respect to workers provided by the labor contractor. The bill would define a client employer as a business entity that obtains or is provided workers to perform labor within the usual course of business from a labor contractor, except as specified. The bill would define a labor contractor as an individual or entity that supplies workers, either with or without a contract, to a client employer to perform labor within the client employer’s usual course of business. The bill would except from the definition of labor contractor specified nonprofit, labor, and motion picture payroll services organizations and 3rd parties engaged in an employee leasing arrangement, as specified. The bill would specify that it does not prohibit client employers and labor contractors from mutually contracting for otherwise lawful remedies for violations of its provisions by the other party. The bill would require a client employer or labor contractor to provide to a requesting enforcement agency or department, and make available for copying, information within its possession, custody, or control required to verify compliance with applicable state laws. The bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and the Employment Development Department to adopt necessary regulations and rules to administer and enforce the bill’s provisions. The bill would provide that waiver of its provisions is contrary to public policy, void, and unenforceable. The bill would prohibit its provisions from being interpreted to impose liability in specified circumstances. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 12950.1 of the Government Code, Relating to Employment. AB 2053 (2013-2014) GonzalezSupportYes
Existing law makes specified employment practices unlawful, including the harassment of an employee directly by the employer or indirectly by agents of the employer with the employer’s knowledge.… More
Existing law makes specified employment practices unlawful, including the harassment of an employee directly by the employer or indirectly by agents of the employer with the employer’s knowledge. Existing law further requires every employer to act to ensure a workplace free of sexual harassment by implementing certain minimum requirements, including posting sexual harassment information posters at the workplace and obtaining and making available an information sheet on sexual harassment. Existing law also requires employers, as defined, with 50 or more employees to provide at least 2 hours of training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees, as specified. Existing law requires each employer to provide that training and education to each supervisory employee once every 2 years. This bill would additionally require that the above-described training and education include, as a component of the training and education, prevention of abusive conduct, as defined. Hide
An Act to Add Article 2.5 (Commencing with Section 1569.261) to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Care Facilities. AB 2171 (2013-2014) WieckowskiSupportYes
Existing law, the Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilities for the elderly by the State Department of Social Services.… More
Existing law, the Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilities for the elderly by the State Department of Social Services. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This bill would establish specified rights for residents of privately operated residential care facilities for the elderly, including, among other things, to be accorded dignity in their personal relationships with staff, to be granted a reasonable level of personal privacy of accommodations, medical treatment, personal care and assistance, and to confidential treatment of their records and personal information, as specified. The bill would require, at admission, a facility staff person to personally advise a resident and the resident’s representative, as described, of these and other specified rights and to provide them with a written copy of these rights. By expanding the scope of a crime, 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Add Section 432.9 to the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 218 (2013-2014) DickinsonSupportYes
Existing law prohibits both public and private employers from asking an applicant for employment to disclose, either in writing or verbally, any information concerning an arrest or detention that did… More
Existing law prohibits both public and private employers from asking an applicant for employment to disclose, either in writing or verbally, any information concerning an arrest or detention that did not result in a conviction. This bill, commencing July 1, 2014, would prohibit a state or local agency from asking an applicant to disclose information regarding a criminal conviction, except as specified, until the agency has determined the applicant meets the minimum employment qualifications for the position. The bill would include specified findings and declarations of the Legislature in support of this policy. Because this bill would impose new requirements on local agencies relative to employment application procedures, it 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 these statutory provisions. Hide
An Act to Add Article 7 (Commencing with Section 5430) to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the Public Utilities Code, Relating to Transportation. AB 2293 (2013-2014) BonillaOpposeYes
Existing law, the Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act, provides for the regulation of charter-party carriers of passengers by the Public Utilities Commission, and makes it unlawful for a… More
Existing law, the Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act, provides for the regulation of charter-party carriers of passengers by the Public Utilities Commission, and makes it unlawful for a charter-party carrier to operate without first obtaining a permit or certificate, from the commission, except as specified. The act requires a charter-party carrier to, among other things, comply with specified vehicle identification and accident liability protection requirements. A violation of the act is generally a misdemeanor, punishable by a specified fine or term of imprisonment, or both, depending on the violation. This bill would amend the Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act to enact specified requirements for liability insurance coverage for transportation network companies, as defined, and their participating drivers. These requirements would become operative on July 1, 2015. The bill would describe 2 distinct time periods and would specify the insurance requirements for each of those time periods and alternative methods of compliance with those requirements. The bill would require uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage to be provided for specified time periods. The bill would, in the event a driver’s insurance policy ceases to exist or has been canceled, or under certain other circumstances, require a transportation network company’s insurance policy to provide the required coverage. The bill, beginning July 1, 2015, would provide that a participating driver’s or vehicle owner’s personal automobile insurance policy does not provide coverage to the participating driver, vehicle owner, or any 3rd party unless the policy so provides. The bill, beginning July 1, 2015, would require certain written disclosures by transportation network companies to their participating drivers on the insurance coverage provided by the company and to advise that the driver’s personal automobile insurance policy will not provide coverage. The bill would authorize a personal automobile insurer to offer such coverage at its discretion to cover private vehicles, as specified. The bill would require participating drivers to carry proof of insurance coverage, as specified. The bill would require the commission and the Department of Insurance to collaborate on a study of transportation network company insurance, as specified, and would prohibit a transportation network company from disclosing the personally identifiable information of a passenger, except as specified. The bill would specify the Legislature’s intent relating to expediting the approval of transportation network company insurance products, and would set forth related legislative findings and declarations. Because a violation of the bill’s provisions would be a crime, the 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Add Section 66281.7 to the Education Code, Relating to Postsecondary Education. AB 2350 (2013-2014) BonillaSupportYes
Existing law, known as the Donahoe Higher Education Act, sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California’s public and independent segments of higher education and their… More
Existing law, known as the Donahoe Higher Education Act, sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California’s public and independent segments of higher education and their respective institutions of higher education. Provisions of the act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make a provision applicable. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act known as the Equity in Higher Education Act declares, among other things, that it is the policy of the State of California that all persons, regardless of their sex, should enjoy freedom from discrimination of any kind in the postsecondary educational institutions of the state. This bill would express various legislative findings and declarations relating to pregnancy discrimination. The bill would add to the Equity in Higher Education Act a provision specifying that this policy of freedom from discrimination includes, but is not limited to, freedom from pregnancy discrimination as described in a specified federal statute. This bill would prohibit postsecondary educational institutions, including the faculty, staff, or other employees of these institutions, from requiring a graduate student to take a leave of absence, withdraw from the graduate program, or limit his or her graduate studies solely due to pregnancy or pregnancy-related issues. The bill would require postsecondary educational institutions, including the faculty, staff, or other employees of these institutions, to reasonably accommodate pregnant graduate students, as specified, so that they may complete their graduate courses of study and research. The bill would also allow a graduate student who chooses to take a leave of absence because she is pregnant or has recently given birth a period consistent with the policies of the postsecondary educational institution, or a period of 12 additional months, whichever period is longer, to prepare for and take preliminary and qualifying examinations and an extension of at least 12 months toward normative time to degree while they are in candidacy for a graduate degree, unless a longer extension is medically necessary. The bill would allow a graduate student who is not the birth parent and who chooses to take a leave of absence because of the birth of his or her child a period consistent with the policies of the postsecondary educational institution, or a period of one month, whichever period is longer, to prepare for and take preliminary and qualifying examinations, and an extension of at least one month toward normative time to degree while he or she is in candidacy for a graduate degree, unless a longer period or extension is medically necessary to care for his or her partner or their child. The bill would provide that an enrolled graduate student in good academic standing who chooses to take a leave of absence because she is pregnant or has recently given birth would return to her program in good academic standing following a leave period that is consistent with the policies of the postsecondary educational institution, or a period of up to one academic year, whichever period is longer, subject to the reasonable administrative requirements of the institution, unless there is a medical reason for a longer absence, in which case her standing in the graduate program would be maintained during that period of absence. The bill would also provide that an enrolled graduate student in good academic standing who is not the birth parent and who chooses to take a leave of absence because of the birth of his or her child would return to his or her program in good academic standing following a leave period that is consistent with the policies of the postsecondary educational institution, or a period of up to one month, whichever period is longer, subject to the reasonable administrative requirements of the institution. The bill would require each postsecondary educational institution to have a written policy for graduate students on pregnancy discrimination and procedures for addressing pregnancy discrimination complaints under Title IX or this bill. The bill would require a copy of this policy to be made available to faculty, staff, and employees in their required training, and made available to all graduate students attending orientation sessions at a postsecondary educational institution. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 98.6, 98.7, 1102.5, and 1103 Of, to Add Section 1024.6 To, and to Add Chapter 3.1 (Commencing with Section 1019) to Part 3 of Division 2 Of, the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 263 (2013-2014) HernandezSupportYes
Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in… More
Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in prescribed protected conduct relating to the enforcement of the employee’s or applicant’s rights. Existing law provides that an employee who made a bona fide complaint, and was consequently discharged or otherwise suffered an adverse action, is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to willfully refuse to reinstate or otherwise restore an employee who is determined by a specified procedure to be eligible for reinstatement. This bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating or taking adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in protected conduct. The bill would expand the protected conduct to include a written or oral complaint by an employee that he or she is owed unpaid wages. The bill would provide that an employee who was retaliated against or otherwise was subjected to an adverse action is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. The bill would subject a person who violates these provisions to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. The bill would also provide that it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in the enforcement of specified provisions. Because the willful refusal by an employer to reinstate or reimburse an employee who suffered a retaliatory action under these provisions would be a misdemeanor, the bill would expand the scope of a crime and impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law declares that an individual who has applied for employment, or who is or has been employed in this state, is entitled to the protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, regardless of his or her immigration status. Existing law declares that an inquiry into a person’s immigration status for purposes of enforcing state labor and employment laws shall not be permitted, unless a showing is made, by clear and convincing evidence, that the inquiry is necessary in order to comply with federal immigration law. This bill would make it unlawful for an employer or any other person to engage in, or direct another person to engage in, an unfair immigration-related practice, as defined, against a person for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliating against any person for exercising a right protected under state labor and employment laws or under a local ordinance applicable to employees, as specified. The bill would also create a rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 90 days of the exercising of a protected right is committed for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliation. The bill would authorize a civil action by an employee or other person who is the subject of an unfair immigration-related practice. The bill would authorize a court to order the appropriate government agencies to suspend certain business licenses held by the violating party for prescribed periods based on the number of violations. The bill would require the court to consider prescribed circumstances in determining whether a suspension of all licenses is appropriate. Existing law prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Existing law further prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for that disclosure. Under existing law, a violation of these provisions by the employer is a misdemeanor. Existing law additionally subjects an employer that is a corporation or a limited liability company to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of these provisions. This bill would additionally prohibit any person acting on behalf of the employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, as provided, and from retaliating against an employee for such a disclosure. The bill would also expand the prohibited actions to include preventing an employee from, or retaliating against an employee for, providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry. The bill would provide that any person or entity that violates these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor, and would further subject an entity that violates these provisions that is a corporation or limited liability company to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of these provisions. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits an employer or prospective employer, with the exception of certain financial institutions, from obtaining a consumer credit report, as defined, for employment purposes unless it is for a specified position, including, among others, a position in the state Department of Justice, a managerial position, as defined, or a position that involves regular access to $10,000 or more of cash, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating, retaliating, or taking any adverse action against an employee because the employee updates or attempts to update his or her personal information, unless the changes are directly related to the skill set, qualifications, or knowledge required for the job. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 496 that would become operative if this bill and SB 496 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Add Sections 336.8 and 9011.5 to the Elections Code, Relating to Petitions. AB 400 (2013-2014) FongSupportNo
Existing law requires that an initiative petition contain specified language advising the public of its right to determine whether the person circulating the petition is a paid signature gatherer or… More
Existing law requires that an initiative petition contain specified language advising the public of its right to determine whether the person circulating the petition is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer. This bill would require a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petition circulated by a paid circulator, as defined, who is paid by a committee to include a disclosure statement identifying the persons from whom the committee received the 5 largest cumulative contributions of $10,000 or more in support of the measure and the name of their employer, if 2 or more of these contributors have the same employer. The bill would require this disclosure statement to be updated within 7 days of any change in the 5 largest cumulative contributors. The bill would require a committee that employs one or more paid circulators for the purpose of circulating an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to submit the disclosure statement, and any updates to it, to the Secretary of State for posting on his or her Internet Web site. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 5374 of the Public Utilities Code, and to Amend Section 1808.1 of the Vehicle Code, Relating to Transportation. AB 612 (2013-2014) NazarianSupportNo
(1)The Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act, with certain exceptions, prohibits a charter-party carrier of passengers from engaging in transportation services subject to regulation by the Public… More
(1)The Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act, with certain exceptions, prohibits a charter-party carrier of passengers from engaging in transportation services subject to regulation by the Public Utilities Commission without obtaining a specified certificate or permit, as appropriate, from the commission, subject to various requirements. The act defines a charter-party carrier of passengers as every person engaged in the transportation of persons by motor vehicle for compensation, whether in common or contract carriage, over any public highway in this state and includes any person, corporation, or other entity engaged in the provision of a hired driver service when a rented motor vehicle is being operated by a hired driver. This bill would prohibit the commission from issuing or renewing a permit or certificate to a charter-party carrier of passengers unless the applicant, in addition to existing requirements, participates in the Department of Motor Vehicles pull-notice system and provides for mandatory Department of Justice background checks of every driver, except as specified, who is either employed by or under contract to the applicant. The bill would require a driver of a charter-party carrier to submit to the Department of Justice fingerprint images and related information for the purpose of obtaining information as to the existence and content of state convictions and state arrests, as specified. The bill would require the department to charge a fee sufficient to cover the cost of processing the request described in these provisions. The bill would provide that its provisions apply to all charter-party carriers regardless of class or category created by the commission.The bill would require that drivers hired or initially retained on or after January 1, 2015, be subject to background checks and mandatory drug and alcohol testing prior to employment or retention and that drivers hired or initially retained before January 1, 2015, complete a background check and drug and alcohol test before January 1, 2016.(2)Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3)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. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 912 and 917 Of, and to Add Article 9.5 (Commencing with Section 1048) to Chapter 4 of Division 8 Of, the Evidence Code, Relating to Evidentiary Privileges. AB 729 (2013-2014) HernandezSupportNo
Existing law governs the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings and generally provides a privilege as to communications made in the course of certain relations, including the attorney-client,… More
Existing law governs the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings and generally provides a privilege as to communications made in the course of certain relations, including the attorney-client, physician-patient, and psychotherapist-patient relationship, as specified. Under existing law, the right of any person to claim those evidentiary privileges is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to a disclosure made by anyone. This bill would provide that a union agent, as defined, and a represented employee or represented former employee have a privilege to refuse to disclose any confidential communication between the employee or former employee and the union agent while the union agent was acting in his or her representative capacity, except as specified. The bill would provide that a represented employee or represented former employee also has a privilege to prevent another person from disclosing a privileged communication, except as specified. The bill would further provide that this privilege may be waived in accordance with existing law and does not apply in criminal proceedings. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 912 of the Evidence Code made by this bill and AB 267, to take effect if both bills are chaptered and this bill is chaptered last. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 101, 9008, 9030, and 9031 Of, and to Add Sections 9009.5, 9009.6, 9022.5, 9036, and 9037 To, the Elections Code, Relating to Elections. AB 857 (2013-2014) FongSupportNo
(1)The California Constitution and existing statutory law provide for the electors to propose statutes or amendments to the Constitution by initiative. Existing law authorizes a person who is a voter… More
(1)The California Constitution and existing statutory law provide for the electors to propose statutes or amendments to the Constitution by initiative. Existing law authorizes a person who is a voter or who is qualified to register to vote in California to circulate an initiative or referendum petition anywhere within the state. Existing law requires that each section of a petition for an initiative or referendum measure have attached thereto the declaration of the person soliciting the signatures that includes specified information. This bill would require a person who solicits signatures for a proposed initiative measure and does not receive money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors to make additional declarations, as specified. (2)Existing law requires local elections officials to perform various duties with respect to statewide initiative petitions including, within 8 days after the filing of a petition, determining the total number of signatures affixed to the petition. Existing law also requires an elections official, within 30 days of notification from the Secretary of State that a petition has received 100% or more of the signatures needed to declare the petition sufficient, to determine the number of qualified voters who signed the petition. Upon order of the Secretary of State, existing law requires an elections official, within 30 days, to verify each signature on a petition, as specified. This bill would extend the time a local elections official is required to determine the total number of signatures affixed to a petition to 10 days, and would extend the time a local elections official is required to determine the number of qualified voters who signed the petition to 35 days after receiving notice from the Secretary of State that the petition has received the signatures needed to declare the petition sufficient. The bill also would extend the time that an elections official is required to verify the signatures on a petition to 35 days. This bill would require at least 10% of the signatures that are required to qualify an initiative measure to be solicited by a person who does not receive money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors, and would require that the declaration of such a person include additional content, as specified. The bill would require an elections official who determines the total number of signatures affixed to a petition and an elections official or registrar of voters who verifies signatures on petitions to also determine the total number of signatures submitted by persons who do not receive money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors, as specified. The bill would include specified findings and declarations of the Legislature in support of these policies. (3)Existing law requires that, if the statistical sampling shows that the number of valid signatures on a petition is within 95 to 110% of the number of signatures of qualified voters needed to declare the petition sufficient, the Secretary of State shall order the examination and verification of each signature filed, and shall so notify the elections officials. This bill, with regard to an initiative petition for which the statistical sampling shows that the number of valid signatures for all signatures submitted is more than 110% of the number of qualified voters needed to find the petition sufficient, but the number of valid signatures submitted for purposes of the 10% requirement described above is within 95 to 110% of the number of signatures needed to satisfy that requirement, would require the Secretary of State to only order an examination and verification of each signature filed that would satisfy the 10% requirement. (4)Existing law requires every proposed initiative measure, prior to circulation, to include on the petition, among other things, the circulating title and summary prepared by the Attorney General and a heading for the initiative measure, as specified. Existing law also requires a petition for a proposed initiative or referendum measure to be presented in sections, as specified. This bill would provide that its provisions do not apply to any initiative petition for which the Attorney General issued a circulating title and summary before January 1, 2014, and would require a petition for a proposed initiative measure to have printed in the one-inch space across the top of the first page of each section of the petition, in 18-point roman boldface type, the circulating title for the measure prepared by the Attorney General. The bill would additionally require a petition for a proposed initiative measure that is circulated by persons who do not receive money or other valuable consideration for the purpose of obtaining signatures of electors to be printed on white paper in a contrasting color ink. The bill also would require a petition for a proposed initiative measure that is circulated by persons who do receive money or other valuable consideration for the purpose of obtaining signatures of electors to be printed on paper of a color other than white in a contrasting color ink. (5)Under existing law, an initiative petition must contain specified language advising the public of its right to ask whether the person circulating the petition is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer. This bill would additionally require a statewide initiative, referendum, or recall petition to include a disclosure notifying the public that the petition circulator is receiving money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors, as specified. (6)Existing law provides that a person who engages in specified conduct in connection with the collection of signatures on any statewide initiative or referendum petition is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would require a statewide initiative or referendum petition section to be deemed invalid, and would prohibit use of the petition section for the purpose of determining whether the initiative or referendum measure qualifies for the ballot, if the signatures are solicited and submitted by a person who engages in fraud, misrepresentation, or any of the specified conduct for which he or she may be found guilty of a misdemeanor. The bill would authorize specified persons to enforce this provision by a civil action upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence. (7)Because this bill would impose new requirements on local elections officials relative to calculating and verifying signatures on a petition, it 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 these statutory provisions. Hide
An Act to Add Section 128372 to the Health and Safety Code, to Add Section 230.9 to the Labor Code, to Amend Sections 1088.5 and 1095 Of, and to Add Division 11 (Commencing with Section 19000) To, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and to Amend Section 11025 Of, and to Add Article 7 (Commencing with Section 14199) to Chapter 7 of Part 3 of Division 9 Of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, Relating to Health Care Coverage, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, To Take Effect Immediately. AB 880 (2013-2014) GomezSupportNo
Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, to afford to qualifying individuals health care and related remedial or preventive… More
Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, to afford to qualifying individuals health care and related remedial or preventive services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid provisions. Existing law, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires applicable large employers, as defined, who offer full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage and for whom one full-time employee has been certified as having enrolled in a qualified health plan for which a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid, to pay a specified fee. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2015, require a large employer, as defined, to pay the Employment Development Department an employer responsibility penalty for each covered employee, as defined, enrolled in Medi-Cal based on the average cost of employee-only coverage provided by large employers to their employees, including both the employer’s and employee’s share of the premiums, as specified. The bill would assess interest of 10% per annum on employer responsibility penalties not paid on or before the date payment is due, as specified, and would require a large employer subject to an employer responsibility penalty to pay a penalty, as specified, for any employer responsibility penalty payment that is more than 60 days overdue. The bill would establish the Employer Responsibility for Medi-Cal Trust Fund, which would consist of the penalty amounts and interest collected pursuant to these provisions and would require that, upon appropriation, the moneys in the fund be used by the State Department of Health Care Services to provide payment for the nonfederal share of Medi-Cal costs for covered employees, to increase reimbursement to providers of care by providing supplemental Medi-Cal payments for specified benefits and providers, to provide reimbursement to county health systems, community clinics, and other safety net providers, as defined, that provide care without expectation of compensation to those Californians who do not have minimum essential coverage, as defined, to fund medical residency programs that meet certain criteria developed by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and for all costs to implement the penalty provisions, as specified. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2015, prohibit a large employer from discharging or taking other action, as specified, against an employee who enrolls in a public health benefit program or advance premium tax credits through the California Health Benefit Exchange, and would provide that an employee is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement of lost wages and work benefits if a large employer discharges or takes other action against an employee for those reasons. The bill would authorize an employee to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement of the Department of Industrial Relations if the employee is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated or retaliated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer in violation of these provisions. Existing law requires employers to file specified information with the Employment Development Department, upon hiring an employee, that may be used by specified state departments, exchanges, and boards, and county departments and agencies for specified purposes, including verifying or determining the eligibility of an applicant for, or a recipient of, state health subsidy programs, as specified, if the verification or determination is directly connected with, and limited to, the administration of the referenced state health subsidy programs. This bill would expand these provisions to allow the information to be used if the verification or determination is directly connected with, and limited to, the administration or funding of the referenced state health subsidy programs. Existing law authorizes the Director of the Employment Development Department to permit the use of information in his or her possession for specified purposes and to require reimbursement for all direct costs incurred in providing that information. Existing law provides that this information includes information provided to enable federal, state, or local government departments or agencies, subject to federal law, to verify or determine the eligibility or entitlement of an applicant for, or a recipient of, public social services if the verification or determination is directly connected with, and limited to, the administration of public social services. This bill would expand these provisions to allow the information to be used if the verification or determination is directly connected with, and limited to, the administration or funding of the public social services. Existing law also authorizes the director to permit the use of information in his or her possession and to require reimbursement for all direct costs incurred in providing that information to enable specified state departments, exchanges, and boards, and county departments and agencies, to obtain information regarding employee wages, California employer names and account numbers, employer reports of wages and number of employees, and disability insurance and unemployment insurance claim information, for specified purposes. This bill would authorize the director to provide information to enable these entities to obtain information regarding state employer identification numbers. The bill would also authorize the director to provide to the State Department of Health Care Services employer information and employee wage information on individuals who are enrolled in the Medi-Cal program to determine the employer responsibility penalties that would owed by large employers. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services and the State Department of Health Care Services to make use of the records of the Franchise Tax Board to match unearned income against reported income of applicants for, and recipients of, aid or public social services. This bill would also require each department to use these records to match social security numbers of applicants for, and recipients of, aid or public services with their employer’s state employer identification number, which shall then be forwarded to the appropriate county welfare department or other appropriate state departments for use, as specified.This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 127280, 127400, and 129050 Of, to Add Chapter 2.6 (Commencing with Section 127470) to Part 2 of Division 107 Of, and to Repeal Article 2 (Commencing with Section 127340) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 107 Of, the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Health Facilities. AB 975 (2013-2014) WieckowskiSupportNo
Existing law makes certain findings and declarations regarding the social obligation of private nonprofit hospitals to provide community benefits in the public interest, and requires these hospitals,… More
Existing law makes certain findings and declarations regarding the social obligation of private nonprofit hospitals to provide community benefits in the public interest, and requires these hospitals, among other responsibilities, to adopt and update a community benefits plan for providing community benefits either alone, in conjunction with other health care providers, or through other organizational arrangements. Existing law requires each private nonprofit hospital, as defined, to complete a community needs assessment, as defined, and to thereafter update the community needs assessment at least once every 3 years. Existing law also requires the hospital to file a report on its community benefits plan and the activities undertaken to address community needs with the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Existing law requires the statewide office to make the plans available to the public. Existing law requires that each hospital include in its community benefits plan measurable objectives and specific benefits. This bill would declare the necessity of establishing uniform standards for reporting the amount of charity care and community benefits a facility provides to ensure that private nonprofit hospitals and nonprofit multispecialty clinics actually meet the social obligations for which they receive favorable tax treatment, among other findings and declarations. This bill would require a private nonprofit hospital and nonprofit multispecialty clinic, as defined, by January 1, 2016, to develop, in collaboration with the community, a community benefits statement, as specified, and a description of the process for approval of the community benefits statement by the hospital’s or clinic’s governing board, as specified. This bill would require the hospital or clinic, prior to adopting a community benefits plan, to complete a community needs assessment, as provided. The bill would authorize the hospital or clinic to create a community benefits advisory committee for the purpose of soliciting community input. This bill would require the hospital or clinic to make available to the public a copy of the assessment, file the assessment with the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and update the assessment at least every 3 years. This bill would also require a private nonprofit hospital and nonprofit multispecialty clinic, by April 1, 2016, to develop a community benefits plan that includes a summary of the needs assessment and a statement of the community health care needs that will be addressed by the plan, and list the services, as provided, that the hospital or clinic intends to provide in the following year to address community health needs identified in the community health needs assessments. The bill would require the hospital or clinic to make its community health needs assessment and community benefits plan or community health plan available to the public on its Internet Web site and would require that a copy of the assessment and plan be given free of charge to any person upon request. This bill would require a private nonprofit hospital or nonprofit multispecialty clinic, after April 1, 2016, every 2 years to revise and submit its community benefits plan to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, as specified, and would allow a hospital or clinic under the common control of a single corporation or other entity to file a consolidated plan, as provided. The bill would require that the governing board of each hospital or clinic adopt the community benefits plan and make it available to the public, as specified. This bill would require the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development to develop and adopt regulations to prescribe a standardized format for community benefits plans, as provided, to provide technical assistance to help private nonprofit hospitals and nonprofit multispecialty clinics exempt from licensure comply with the community benefits provisions, to make public each community health needs assessment and community benefits plan and any comments received regarding those assessments and plans, and to calculate and make public the total value of community benefits provided by hospitals, as specified. This bill would authorize the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development to assess a civil penalty, as provided, against any hospital or clinic that fails to comply with these provisions. This bill would make conforming changes.Under existing law, patients with high medical costs who are at or below 350% of the federal poverty level are eligible to apply for participation under a hospital’s charity care policy or discount care policy. A patient with high medical costs is defined as a patient who, among other things, does not receive a discounted rate from the hospital as a result of his or her third-party coverage. This bill would delete that limitation from the definition of a patient with a high medical costs. Hide
An Act to Add Article 15 (Commencing with Section 111224) to Chapter 5 of Part 5 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Public Health. SB 1000 (2013-2014) MonningSupportNo
(1)Existing federal law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, regulates, among other things, the quality and packaging of foods introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce… More
(1)Existing federal law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, regulates, among other things, the quality and packaging of foods introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce and generally prohibits the misbranding of food. Existing federal law, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, governs state and local labeling requirements, including those that characterize the relationship of any nutrient specified in the labeling of food to a disease or health-related condition. Existing state law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, generally regulates misbranded food and provides that any food is misbranded if its labeling does not conform with the requirements for nutrient content or health claims as set forth in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the regulations adopted pursuant to that federal act. Existing law requires that a food facility, as defined, make prescribed disclosures and warnings to consumers, as specified. A violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing state law, the Pupil Nutrition, Health, and Achievement Act of 2001, also requires the sale of only certain beverages to pupils at schools. The beverages that may be sold include fruit-based and vegetable-based drinks, drinking water with no added sweetener, milk, and in middle and high schools, an electrolyte replacement beverage if those beverages meet certain nutritional requirements. This bill would establish the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, which would prohibit a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale a sugar-sweetened beverage in a sealed beverage container, or a multipack of sugar-sweetened beverages, in this state unless the beverage container or multipack bears a specified safety warning, as prescribed. The bill also would require every person who owns, leases, or otherwise legally controls the premises where a vending machine or beverage dispensing machine is located, or where a sugar-sweetened beverage is sold in an unsealed container to place a specified safety warning in certain locations, including, on the exterior of any vending machine that includes a sugar-sweetened beverage for sale.(2)Under existing law, the State Department of Public Health, upon the request of a health officer, as defined, may authorize the local health department of a city, county, city and county, or local health district to enforce the provisions of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Public Health to assess a civil penalty against any person in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per day, except as specified. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General or any district attorney, on behalf of the State Department of Public Health, to bring an action in a superior court to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining a person from violating any provision of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. This bill, commencing July 1, 2015, would provide that any violation of the provisions described in (1) above, or regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions, is punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $50, but no greater than $500. By imposing additional enforcement duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also create the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Fund for the receipt of all moneys collected for violations of those provisions. The bill would allocate moneys in this fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the local enforcement agencies for the purpose of enforcing those provisions. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, and dental disease. (3)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. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 1374.8 and 1385.07 Of, and to Add Section 1385.10 To, the Health and Safety Code, and to Amend Sections 791.27 and 10181.7 Of, and to Add Section 10181.10 To, the Insurance Code, Relating to Health Care Coverage. SB 1182 (2013-2014) LenoSupportYes
Existing law, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), requires the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a process for the annual review of… More
Existing law, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), requires the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a process for the annual review of unreasonable increases in premiums for health insurance coverage in which health insurance issuers submit to the secretary and the relevant state, a justification for an unreasonable premium increase prior to implementation of the increase. Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. For large group plan contracts and policies, existing law requires a plan or insurer to file rate information with the appropriate department at least 60 days prior to implementing an unreasonable rate increase, as defined in PPACA. Existing law requires the plan or insurer to also disclose specified aggregate data with that rate filing. This bill would require a health care service plan or health insurer to annually provide deidentified claims data at no charge to a large group purchaser that requests the information and meets specified conditions. The bill would specify that all disclosures of data to the large group purchaser made pursuant to these provisions is required to comply with the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the federal Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act or the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, as specified. The bill would prohibit a health care service plan or a health insurer from disclosing the contracted rates between the health care service plan or health insurer and a provider to a large group purchaser. This bill would specify that additional aggregate claims data disclosed to a large group purchaser by a health care service plan or health insurer is confidential and is prohibited from being made public by the department and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. Existing law prohibits, with exceptions, a health care service plan or health insurer from releasing any information to an employer that would directly or indirectly indicate to the employer that an employee is receiving or has received services from a health care provider covered by the plan unless authorized to do so by the employee. This bill would exempt from the prohibition the release of relevant information for the purposes set forth in these provisions regarding a plan’s or insurer’s annual disclosure of deidentified claims data to a large group purchaser. Because a willful violation of the bill’s requirements by a health care services plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. Hide
An Act to Add Section 1762 to the Civil Code, Relating to Consumer Affairs. SB 1188 (2013-2014) JacksonSupportNo
Existing law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, makes unlawful certain acts identified as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a… More
Existing law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, makes unlawful certain acts identified as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods to any consumer. Existing case law had held that act to encompass omissions, including the omission of a material fact a person was obliged to disclose. This bill, for the purposes of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, would provide that fraud or deceit may consist of the suppression or omission of a material fact by one who is bound to disclose it or who gives information of other facts that are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact, and would provide that a fact is material if a reasonable person would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining a choice of action in the transaction in question. This bill would also provide, for the purposes of the act, that materiality is not limited to circumstances in which a product poses a threat to health or safety. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 6276.12 of the Government Code, and to Amend Section 147.2 of the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. SB 193 (2013-2014) MonningSupportYes
Existing law requires the Department of Industrial Relations, with the State Department of Public Health (DPH), to establish a repository of current data on toxic materials and harmful physical… More
Existing law requires the Department of Industrial Relations, with the State Department of Public Health (DPH), to establish a repository of current data on toxic materials and harmful physical agents in use or potentially in use in places of employment in the state. That repository is known as the Hazard Evaluation System and Information Service (HESIS). Existing law requires HESIS, among other things, to provide information and collect and evaluate data relating to possible hazards to employees resulting from exposure to toxic materials or harmful physical agents. Existing law expressly does not require employers to report any information not otherwise required by law. This bill, except as specified, when there is new scientific or medical information and the Chief of HESIS, in consultation with the Director of Industrial Relations and the Chief of the Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control in DPH, makes a specified determination, would require chemical manufacturers, formulators, suppliers, distributors, importers, and their agents to provide to HESIS the names and addresses of their customers who have purchased specified chemicals or commercial products containing those chemicals, and certain other information related to those shipments, upon written request of HESIS, for every product the final destination of which may be a place of employment in California. The bill would deem the names and addresses of customers, the quantities and dates of shipments, and the proportion of a specified chemical within a mixture to be confidential. The bill would also provide that DPH would be entitled to reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in seeking an injunction to enforce this requirement. The California Public Records Act requires certain public records to be made available for public inspection, and lists records that are exempt from disclosure under the act. The bill would exempt from public disclosure under the act the names and addresses of customers, the quantities and dates of shipments, and the proportion of a specified chemical within a mixture provided to HESIS by chemical manufacturers, formulators, suppliers, distributors, importers, and their agents, that would be required pursuant to the bill, as provided, but would specifically authorize HESIS to disclose that information to officers or employees of the DPH, to officers or employees of the state who are responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Labor Code relating to safety in employment, or to specified state agencies. The bill would also state findings and declarations of the Legislature for limiting the public’s right of access to the information. Hide
An Act to Add Part 21 (Commencing with Section 42001) to Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Taxation, and Making an Appropriation Therefor. SB 241 (2013-2014) EvansSupportNo
Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes on the privilege of engaging in certain activities. The Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, provides procedures for… More
Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes on the privilege of engaging in certain activities. The Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges. This bill would impose an oil and gas severance tax upon any operator, as defined, for the privilege of severing oil or gas from the earth or water in this state for sale, transport, consumption, storage, profit, or use, as provided, at the specified rates, calculated as provided. The tax would be administered by the State Board of Equalization and would be collected pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Fee Collection Procedures Law. The bill would require the board to deposit all tax revenues, penalties, and interest collected pursuant to these provisions into the California Higher Education Fund, a continuously appropriated fund created by this bill, for allocation to the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University, the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and to a reserve account, as provided. Because this bill would expand the scope of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. 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. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 1164.3 of the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. SB 25 (2013-2014) SteinbergSupportNo
Existing law provides that within 60 days of a decision by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board taking effect, a party may file an action to enforce the order, using specified procedures. Existing… More
Existing law provides that within 60 days of a decision by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board taking effect, a party may file an action to enforce the order, using specified procedures. Existing law provides that during the pendency of any appeal of the board’s order, the order may not be stayed unless the appellant demonstrates that he or she is likely to prevail on the merits and that he or she will be irreparably harmed by implementation of the board’s order. This bill would provide that an action to enforce the order of the board may be filed within 60 days whether or not the other party is seeking judicial review of the order. The bill would also increase the evidentiary threshold for the court to grant a stay of the board’s order and require the court to make written findings supporting any order granting a stay of the order during the pendency of the appeal. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 1747.02 and 1747.08 of the Civil Code, Relating to Credit Cards. SB 383 (2013-2014) JacksonSupportNo
Existing state and federal law regulates the provision of credit and the use of credit cards. The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 generally regulates credit card transactions and prohibits a… More
Existing state and federal law regulates the provision of credit and the use of credit cards. The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 generally regulates credit card transactions and prohibits a person or entity that accepts credit cards for the transaction of business from requesting, or requiring as a condition to accepting the credit card, that the cardholder write any personal identification information, as defined, upon the credit card transaction form or otherwise. Existing law prohibits a person or entity that accepts credit cards for the transaction of business from requesting, or requiring as a condition to accepting the credit card, that the cardholder provide his or her personal identification information to the person or entity to be written or caused to be written upon the credit card transaction form or otherwise. Notwithstanding those provisions, existing law authorizes a person or entity that accepts credit cards for the transaction of business to require the cardholder, as a condition to accepting the credit card, to provide reasonable forms of positive identification, which may include a driver’s license or a California state identification card, provided that the information is not written or recorded on the credit card transaction form or otherwise. Existing law authorizes the use of ZIP Code information in a sales transaction at a retail motor fuel dispenser or retail motor fuel payment island with an automated cashier that uses the ZIP Code information solely for prevention of fraud, theft, or identity theft. This bill would authorize a person or entity that accepts credit cards in an online transaction involving an electronic downloadable product, as defined, to require a cardholder, as a condition to accepting a credit card as payment in full or in part, in an online transaction involving an electronic downloadable product, to provide personal identification information, as defined, if it requires that information for the detection, investigation, or prevention of fraud, theft, identity theft, or criminal activity, or for enforcement of terms of sale, and the personal identification information is used solely for those purposes. The bill would require that person or entity to destroy or dispose of the personal identification information it requires in a secure manner after it is no longer needed for those purposes. The bill would prohibit that person or entity from aggregating personal identification information and from sharing personal identification information it requires with any other person or entity, as specified. The bill, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, would also authorize a person or entity accepting a credit card in an online transaction involving an electronic downloadable product to require a consumer to establish an account as a condition for purchase of the product and to provide personally identifiable information in connection with that account, as specified. The bill would also authorize a consumer, concurrent with completing a transaction for an electronically downloadable product, to elect to opt in to the collection and use of personally identifiable information provided certain disclosures are made and he or she is permitted to opt out prior to completing the transaction. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 12920, 12921, 12926, 12940, and 12955.2 of the Government Code, Relating to Fair Employment. SB 404 (2013-2014) JacksonSupportNo
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, protects and safeguards the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or… More
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, protects and safeguards the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation. This bill would include “familial status,” as defined, as an additional basis upon which the right to seek, obtain, and hold employment cannot be denied. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 905.2 and 19683 Of, and to Add Section 8547.15 To, the Government Code, and to Amend Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. SB 496 (2013-2014) WrightSupportYes
(1)The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim for money or damages against the state. This bill would create an exception to the general procedure for… More
(1)The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim for money or damages against the state. This bill would create an exception to the general procedure for a claim alleging a violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act. (2)The California Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits acts of reprisal, retaliation, coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or an applicant for state employment who made a protected disclosure relating to an improper governmental activity, as defined. The State Civil Service Act requires the State Personnel Board to initiate a hearing or investigation of a complaint of reprisal or retaliation in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act within 10 working days and the executive officer of the board to complete the findings of the hearing or investigation within 60 working days. The State Civil Service Act authorizes the executive officer to consolidate a case with the same or similar allegations to those contained in an appeal and exempts consolidated cases from the time limits for hearings, investigations, and findings. This bill would modify these requirements to instead require the board to render its decision on the consolidated matter within 6 months of the date of the order of consolidation, as specified. The bill would also make other technical changes.The act further authorizes the State Auditor to investigate and report whether it finds that a state agency or employee may have engaged or participated in an improper governmental activity. Under the act, any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or applicant for state employment for having made a disclosure that may evidence an improper governmental activity or dangerous condition is subject to, among other things, liability in an action for damages brought against him or her by the injured party. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of claims as a prerequisite to commencement of actions for money or damages against the State of California, counties, cities, cities and counties, districts, local authorities, and other political subdivisions of the state, and against the officers, employees, and servants of those entities.This bill would establish an exception for an action for damages pursuant to the California Whistleblower Protection Act from the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act.(3)Existing law prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Existing law prohibits any employer from retaliating against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency pursuant to these provisions or for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a state or federal statute or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Under existing law, an employer who violates these provisions is guilty of a crime. This bill would expand these provisions to prohibit an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of or noncompliance with a local rule or regulation. The bill would prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information to a government or law enforcement agency, or to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. The bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee for disclosing, or refusing to participate in an activity that would result in, a violation of or noncompliance with a local rule or regulation. (4)This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 666 and AB 263 that would become operative if this bill and either SB 666 or AB 263, or both, are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5)Because this bill would change the definition of a crime, 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Add Title 18 (Commencing with Section 3273) to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, Relating to Civil Law. SB 556 (2013-2014) PadillaSupportYes
Existing law specifies the authority of agents in dealing with 3rd persons. The Consumers Legal Remedies Act prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices… More
Existing law specifies the authority of agents in dealing with 3rd persons. The Consumers Legal Remedies Act prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by a person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods to any consumer, as defined, and authorizes specified remedies for a consumer who suffers damages as a result of the use of these methods, acts, or practices. This bill would prohibit a person, firm, corporation, or association that is a nongovernmental entity and contracts to perform, on or after January 1, 2015, public health and safety labor or services for a public agency from displaying on a vehicle or uniform a logo, as defined, that reasonably could be interpreted as implying that the labor or services are being provided by employees of the public agency, unless the vehicle or uniform conspicuously displays specific disclosures. The bill would prohibit a public agency from requiring a person or employee of a nongovernmental entity providing public health and safety labor or services under contract with the public agency to wear a badge containing the logo of the public agency. The bill would also prohibit a nongovernmental entity providing public health and safety labor or services under contract with a public agency from requiring a person or its employee to wear a badge containing the logo of the public agency. This bill would define the term “public health and safety labor or services” to mean fire protection services, rescue services, emergency medical services, hazardous material emergency response services, and ambulance services. This bill would authorize that these provisions may be enforced by the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Hide
An Act to Add Section 4073.5 to the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Pharmacy. SB 598 (2013-2014) HillOpposeNo
The Pharmacy Law governs the practice of pharmacy in this state, including the permissible duties of licensed pharmacists. Among other permitted acts, a pharmacist filling a prescription order for a… More
The Pharmacy Law governs the practice of pharmacy in this state, including the permissible duties of licensed pharmacists. Among other permitted acts, a pharmacist filling a prescription order for a drug product prescribed by its trade or brand name may select another drug product with the same active chemical ingredients of the same strength, quantity, and dosage form, and of the same generic drug name as determined, as specified, of those drug products having the same active chemical ingredients. A person who knowingly violates the Pharmacy Law is guilty of a misdemeanor, as specified. This bill would authorize a pharmacist, in his or her discretion, except as specified, to select a biosimilar, as defined, when filling a prescription order for a prescribed biological product only if the product has been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration, as specified, and the prescriber does not personally indicate “Do not substitute,” as specified. The bill would also require, for prescriptions filled prior to January 1, 2017, the pharmacy to, within 5 business days of the selection of a biological product or an interchangeable biosimilar, notify the prescriber or enter in a patient record whether the prescription dispensed was a biological product or an interchangeable biosimilar, except as specified. The bill would prohibit a pharmacist from selecting a biosimilar that meets the requirements of these provisions unless the cost to the patient of the biosimilar selected is the same or less than the cost of the prescribed biological product. The bill would also require that the substitution of a biosimilar be communicated to the patient. Because a knowing violation of these requirements would be a misdemeanor, the bill would create new crimes, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require the California State Board of Pharmacy to maintain on its public Internet Web site a link to the current list, if available, of biosimilar products determined by the federal Food and Drug Administration to be interchangeable, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Add Section 1782 to the Labor Code, Relating to Public Works. SB 7 (2013-2014) SteinbergSupportYes
Existing law requires that, except as specified, not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, be paid to workers employed on public… More
Existing law requires that, except as specified, not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, be paid to workers employed on public works projects. Existing law defines “public works” to include, among other things, construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for, in whole or in part, out of public funds, and street, sewer, or other improvement work done under the direction and supervision or by the authority of any officer or public body of the state, or of any political subdivision or district thereof, whether the political subdivision or district operates under a freeholder’s charter or not. This bill would prohibit a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a construction project if the city has a charter provision or ordinance that authorizes a contractor to not comply with prevailing wage provisions on any public works contract. The bill would, except as specified, prohibit a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a construction project if the city has awarded, within the prior 2 years, a public works contract without requiring the contractor to comply with prevailing wage provisions. This bill would authorize charter cities to receive or use state funding or financial assistance if the city has a local prevailing wage ordinance, applicable to all of its public works contracts, that includes requirements that are equal to or greater than the state’s prevailing wage requirements, as specified. This bill would exclude contracts for projects of $25,000 or less for construction work, or projects of $15,000 or less for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance work. This bill would require the Director of Industrial Relations to maintain a list of charter cities that may receive and use state funding or financial assistance for their construction projects. This bill would provide that it does not restrict a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance that was awarded to the city prior to January 1, 2015, or from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance to complete a contract that was awarded prior to January 1, 2015, and that a charter city would not be disqualified from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for its construction projects based on the city’s failure to require a contractor to comply with prevailing wage provisions in performing a contract the city advertised for bid or awarded prior to January 1, 2015. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 1182.12 of the Labor Code, Relating to Wages. SB 935 (2013-2014) LenoSupportNo
Existing law requires that, on and after July 1, 2014, the minimum wage for all industries be not less than $9 per hour. Existing law further increases the minimum wage, on and after January 1, 2016,… More
Existing law requires that, on and after July 1, 2014, the minimum wage for all industries be not less than $9 per hour. Existing law further increases the minimum wage, on and after January 1, 2016, to not less than $10 per hour. This bill would increase the minimum wage, on and after January 1, 2015, to not less than $11 per hour, on and after January 1, 2016, to not less than $12 per hour, and on and after January 1, 2017, to not less than $13 per hour. The bill would require the automatic adjustment of the minimum wage annually thereafter, to maintain employee purchasing power diminished by the rate of inflation during the previous year. The adjustment would be calculated using the California Consumer Price Index, as specified. The bill would prohibit the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) from reducing the minimum wage and from adjusting the minimum wage if the average percentage of inflation for the previous year was negative. The bill would require the IWC to publicize the automatically adjusted minimum wage. The bill would provide that its provisions not be construed to preclude the IWC from increasing the minimum wage to an amount greater than the calculation would provide or to preclude or supersede an increase of the minimum wage that is greater than the state minimum wage by any local government or tribal government. The bill would apply to all industries, including public and private employment. Hide
An Act to Add Section 11349.11 To, and to Add and Repeal Section 11349.10 Of, the Government Code, Relating to Regulations. SB 981 (2013-2014) HuffOpposeNo
Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, governs the procedure for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies. This bill would require each agency to review each… More
Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, governs the procedure for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies. This bill would require each agency to review each regulation adopted prior to January 1, 2014, and to develop a report with prescribed information to be submitted to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2016. The bill would also require each agency, on or before January 1, 2021, and at least every 5 years thereafter, to conduct additional reviews of regulations that have been in effect for at least 20 years, as specified, and to submit an annual report to the Legislature that identifies the regulations reviewed during that year and the associated findings. Hide
AB 10 (2011-2012) AlejoSupportNo
An Act to Amend Section 4663 of the Labor Code, Relating to Workers’ Compensation. AB 1155 (2011-2012) AlejoSupportNo
(1)Existing law establishes a workers’ compensation system, administered by the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation, to compensate an employee for injuries sustained… More
(1)Existing law establishes a workers’ compensation system, administered by the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation, to compensate an employee for injuries sustained in the course of his or her employment. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to prohibit the use of risk factors and specified characteristics to deny an injured worker his or her rightful benefit when disabled in the workplace. The bill would also state the intent of the Legislature to prohibit the apportionment of risk factors and characteristics without prohibiting the apportionment of documentable preexisting nonindustrial causes of disability or holding an employer liable for any percentage of permanent disability not directly caused by an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. (2)Existing law requires any physician who prepares a report addressing the issue of permanent disability due to a claimed industrial injury to address the issue of causation of the permanent disability, and requires that the report include an apportionment determination in order to be considered complete on the issue of permanent disability. Existing law requires a physician to make an apportionment determination by finding what approximate percentage of the permanent disability is caused by the direct result of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and what approximate percentage is caused by other factors. This bill would prohibit the approximate percentage of the permanent disability caused by other factors from including consideration of race, religious creed, color, national origin, age, gender, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or genetic characteristics. Hide
AB 1450 (2011-2012) AllenSupportNo
An Act to Add Sections 70024 and 70025 to the Education Code, and to Amend Sections 23101 and 25128 Of, to Amend and Repeal Section 25128.5 Of, to Amend, Repeal, and Add Section 25136 Of, and to Add Sections 25128.7 and 25136.1 To, the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Education, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately. AB 1500 (2011-2012) PerezSupportNo
The Corporation Tax Law imposes taxes measured by income and, in the case of a business with business income derived from or attributable to sources both within and without this state, apportions the… More
The Corporation Tax Law imposes taxes measured by income and, in the case of a business with business income derived from or attributable to sources both within and without this state, apportions the business income between this state and other states and foreign countries in accordance with a specified 4-factor formula based on the property, payroll, and sales within and without this state, except that in the case of an apportioning trade or business that derives more than 50% of its gross business receipts from conducting one or more qualified business activities, as defined, business income is apportioned in accordance with a specified 3-factor formula. That law, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2011, allows a taxpayer to apportion its business income in accordance with a single sales factor formula, except as provided, pursuant to an irrevocable annual election, as specified. That law also provides that sales of tangible personal property and sales of other than tangible personal property are in this state in accordance with specified criteria. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012, would require a taxpayer, except as provided, to apportion its business income in accordance with a single sale factor and would allow a taxpayer to annually elect to apportion business income in accordance with the 4-factor formula, as provided. This bill also would revise the rules that determine whether a taxpayer is doing business in this state and would revise the provisions that determine whether sales other than tangible personal property occur in this state, including specific provisions for cable systems or networks. This bill would require any aggregate increase in revenues derived from its provisions less a specified amount, as provided, to be deposited into the Middle Class Scholarship Fund, which the bill would establish, and, upon appropriation by the Legislature, allocate those revenues for the purpose of increasing the affordability of higher education. This bill would become operative only if a specified measure is chaptered and establishes a middle-class scholarship program. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
An Act to Add Article 22 (Commencing with Section 70020) to Chapter 2 of Part 42 of Division 5 of Title 3 of the Education Code, and to Amend Section 19611 Of, and to Add Section 17060 To, the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Student Financial Aid, Making an Appropriation Therefor, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately. AB 1501 (2011-2012) PerezSupportNo
(1)Existing law provides for a public postsecondary education system in this state. This system consists of the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community… More
(1)Existing law provides for a public postsecondary education system in this state. This system consists of the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges. Existing law authorizes these institutions to require that mandatory systemwide fees, among other fees, be paid by students at these institutions. This bill would establish the Middle Class Scholarship Program under the administration of the Student Aid Commission. The bill would provide that, commencing with the 2012–13 fiscal year, undergraduate students enrolled at the University of California or the California State University would receive a scholarship grant award credit that, combined with other publicly funded student financial aid, as defined, received by an eligible student, would be 60% of the amount charged that student for mandatory systemwide fees in that fiscal year if the student meets the following conditions: annual household income does not exceed $150,000; is a resident of this state or exempt from paying nonresident tuition; files specified financial aid forms; makes timely application or applications for publicly funded student financial aid, as defined, for which he or she is eligible; and meets prescribed eligibility requirements of the Cal Grant Program, except as specified, and attains at least a 2.0 high school or community college grade point average. The bill would provide that a student whose annual household income exceeds $150,000, and who otherwise meets the requirements, would receive a scholarship grant award credit that is reduced in accordance with prescribed calculations. The bill would require, in order for students enrolled in their respective segments to remain eligible to receive financial aid under the bill, the University of California and the California State University to maintain their respective institutional need-based grant programs at a level that, at a minimum, is equivalent to the level maintained during the 2011–12 fiscal year. The bill would continuously appropriate from the General Fund $150,000,000 to the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges for allocation to community college districts based on calculations of full-time equivalent credit, to be expended, after consultation with student representatives as specified, for the provision of scholarship grants to students to reduce the impact of enrollment fees or to help cover the cost of textbooks and other educational expenses. The bill would require the Student Aid Commission to report the amount of the scholarship grant award credit for each student to the Franchise Tax Board, and to report the aggregate amount of scholarship grant award credits to the Department of Finance. The bill would authorize the Student Aid Commission to determine if sufficient funding is available for purposes of the bill in the 2012–13 fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years, and would further authorize the commission to reduce scholarships proportionately if it determines that sufficient funding is not available.(2)Existing law establishes the continuously appropriated Tax Relief and Refund Account, and provides that payments required to be made to taxpayers or other persons from the Personal Income Tax Fund are to be paid from that account.This bill, for fiscal years beginning with the 2012–13 fiscal year, would authorize an amount equal to a qualified student’s scholarship grant award credit under the Middle Class Scholarship Program, as determined by the Student Aid Commission pursuant to the bill, to be refunded from the Tax Relief and Refund Account, thereby making an appropriation.(3)This bill would become operative only if AB 1500 of the 2011–12 Regular Session is chaptered.(4)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 6203 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Taxation. AB 153 (2011-2012) SkinnerSupportNo
The Sales and Use Tax Law imposes a tax on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other… More
The Sales and Use Tax Law imposes a tax on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state, measured by sales price. That law defines a “retailer engaged in business in this state” to include retailers that engage in specified activities in this state and requires every retailer engaged in business in this state and making sales of tangible personal property for storage, use, or other consumption in this state to register with the State Board of Equalization and to collect the tax from the purchaser and remit it to the board. This bill would include in the definition of a retailer engaged in business in this state any retailer entering into agreements under which a person or persons in this state, for a commission or other consideration, directly or indirectly refer potential purchasers, whether by an Internet-based link or an Internet Web site, or otherwise, to the retailer, provided the total cumulative sales price from all sales by the retailer to purchasers in this state that are referred pursuant to these agreements is in excess of $10,000, within the preceding 12 months, and provided further that the retailer has cumulative sales of tangible personal property to purchasers in this state of over $500,000, within the preceding 12 months, except as specified. This bill would further provide that a retailer entering specified agreements to purchase advertising is not a retailer engaged in business in this state and would define a retailer to include an entity affiliated with a retailer under federal income tax law, as specified. This bill would further provide that these provisions would not apply if the retailer can demonstrate that the referrals would not satisfy specified United States constitutional requirements, as provided.This bill would provide that the provisions of this bill are severable. Hide
An Act to Repeal and Add Section 6203 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Taxation, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately. AB 155 (2011-2012) SkinnerSupportYes
Existing law imposes a sales tax on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, and a use tax on the storage, use, or other… More
Existing law imposes a sales tax on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, and a use tax on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state, measured by sales price. That law requires every retailer engaged in business in this state, as defined, and making sales of tangible personal property for storage, use, or other consumption in this state to collect the tax from the purchaser. Existing law defines a “retailer engaged in business in this state” to include a retailer that has substantial nexus with this state and a retailer upon whom federal law permits the state to impose a use tax collection duty; a retailer entering into an agreement or agreements under which a person or persons in this state, for a commission or other consideration, directly or indirectly refer potential purchasers of tangible personal property to the retailer, whether by an Internet-based link or an Internet Web site, or otherwise, provided that 2 specified conditions are met, including the condition that the retailer, within the preceding 12 months, has total cumulative sales of tangible personal property to purchasers in this state in excess of $500,000; and a retailer that is a member of a commonly controlled group, as defined under the Corporation Tax Law, and a member of a combined reporting group, as defined, that includes another member of the retailer’s commonly controlled group that, pursuant to an agreement with or in cooperation with the retailer, performs services in this state in connection with tangible personal property to be sold by the retailer. This bill would revise the definition of a “retailer engaged in business in this state” to temporarily eliminate the above-mentioned inclusions in that definition, and would condition the commencement of the operation of these inclusions upon the enactment of a certain federal law and the state’s election to implement that law. This bill, for purposes of one of those inclusions, would revise the cumulative sales condition to increase the amount of total cumulative sales of tangible personal property to purchasers in this state to an amount in excess of $1,000,000. This bill would provide that certain provisions of this bill are severable. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
An Act to Add Section 2025.290 to the Code of Civil Procedure, Relating to Depositions. AB 1875 (2011-2012) GattoSupportYes
Existing law authorizes the use of depositions in discovery in civil actions. Any party to a civil action may take an oral deposition of any person, including other parties to the action, following… More
Existing law authorizes the use of depositions in discovery in civil actions. Any party to a civil action may take an oral deposition of any person, including other parties to the action, following service of a deposition notice notifying the deponent of the date, location, and time of the deposition, as well as any materials to be produced by the deponent. This bill would limit a deposition of any person to 7 hours of total testimony, except under specified circumstances. Under the bill, the court would be required to allow additional time if necessary to fairly examine the deponent. The court would also be required to allow additional time if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature with regard to these matters. Hide
AB 1888 (2011-2012) GattoSupportYes
An Act to Amend Sections 20516 and 31461 of the Government Code, Relating to Public Employees’ Retirement. AB 197 (2011-2012) BuchananSupportYes
The Public Employees’ Retirement Law establishes the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) for the purpose of providing pension benefits to specified public employees. PERS is funded by… More
The Public Employees’ Retirement Law establishes the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) for the purpose of providing pension benefits to specified public employees. PERS is funded by investment returns and employer and employee contributions. Existing law authorizes a contracting agency and its employees to agree in writing to share the costs of any optional benefit that is inapplicable to a contracting agency until the agency elects to be subject to the benefit. This bill would instead authorize a contracting agency and its employees to agree in writing to share the costs of the employer contribution with or without a change in benefits, as specified. The bill would prohibit an employer from using impasse procedures to impose member cost sharing on any contribution amount above that which is authorized by law. The County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL) authorizes counties and districts, as defined, to provide a system of retirement benefits to their employees. CERL defines compensation earnable for the purpose of calculating benefits as the average compensation for the period under consideration with respect to the average number of days ordinarily worked by persons in the same grade or class of positions during the period, and at the same rate of pay, as determined by the retirement board. This bill would exclude from the definition of compensation earnable any compensation determined by the board to have been paid to enhance a member’s retirement benefit. The bill would also exclude various payments from the definition of compensation earnable, including payments for unused vacation, annual leave, personal leave, sick leave, and compensatory time off, as well as payments made at the termination of employment, except what may be earned and payable in each 12-month period during the final average salary period. Hide
AB 2039 (2011-2012) SwansonSupportNo
An Act to Amend Section 1785.20.5 of the Civil Code, and to Add Chapter 3.6 (Commencing with Section 1024.5) to Part 2 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 22 (2011-2012) MendozaSupportYes
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the state Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act define and regulate consumer credit reports and authorize the use of consumer credit reports for… More
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the state Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act define and regulate consumer credit reports and authorize the use of consumer credit reports for employment purposes, pursuant to specified requirements. The FCRA provides that it does not preempt state law, except as specifically provided or to the extent that state laws are inconsistent with its provisions. Existing federal and state law specify the procedures that an employer is required to follow before requesting a report and if adverse action is taken based on the report. Existing federal law provides that, subject to certain exceptions, an employer may not procure a report or cause one to be procured for employment purposes, unless prior disclosure of the procurement is made to the consumer and the consumer authorizes the procurement, as specified. Existing federal law further requires, subject to certain exceptions, an employer, before taking any adverse action based on the report, to provide the consumer with a copy of the report and a written description of certain rights of the consumer. Under existing state law, an employer may request a credit report for employment purposes so long as he or she provides prior written notice of the request to the person for whom the report is sought. Existing state law also requires that the written notice inform the person for whom the consumer credit report is sought that a report will be used and of the source of the report and contain space for the person to request a copy of the report. Existing state law further requires an employer, whenever he or she bases an adverse employment decision on information contained in a consumer credit report, to advise the person for whom the report was sought that an adverse action was taken based upon information contained in the report and provide the person with the name and address of the consumer credit agency making the report. A consumer who suffers damages resulting from a violation of these state law provisions may bring a court action to recover monetary damages, as specified, but no person is liable for the violation if he or she shows reasonable procedures were maintained to assure compliance with the provisions, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer or prospective employer, with the exception of certain financial institutions, from obtaining a consumer credit report, as defined, for employment purposes unless the position of the person for whom the report is sought is (1) a position in the state Department of Justice, (2) a managerial position, as defined, (3) that of a sworn peace officer or other law enforcement position, (4) a position for which the information contained in the report is required by law to be disclosed or obtained, (5) a position that involves regular access to specified personal information for any purpose other than the routine solicitation and processing of credit card applications in a retail establishment, (6) a position in which the person is or would be a named signatory on the employer’s bank or credit card account, or authorized to transfer money or enter into financial contracts on the employer’s behalf, (7) a position that involves access to confidential or proprietary information, as specified, or (8) a position that involves regular access to $10,000 or more of cash, as specified. This bill would also require the written notice informing the person for whom a consumer credit report is sought for employment purposes to also inform the person of the specific reason for obtaining the report, as specified. Hide
An Act to Add Section 53069.63 to the Government Code, to Add Part 5.5 (Commencing with Section 1550) to Division 2 of the Labor Code, and to Add Sections 653.65, 653.67, 653.69, 653.71, 653.73, and 653.74 to the Penal Code, Relating to Illegal Immigrants. AB 26 (2011-2012) DonnellyOpposeNo
Existing law, held unenforceable as preempted by federal law in the case of League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson (1997) 997 F.Supp. 1244, prohibits any city, county, or other legally… More
Existing law, held unenforceable as preempted by federal law in the case of League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson (1997) 997 F.Supp. 1244, prohibits any city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity from preventing or limiting the cooperation of any law enforcement agency with federal authorities regarding persons arrested and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, as specified. This bill would prohibit public officials and agencies from adopting a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws or that restricts the sharing of a person’s immigration status, as specified. The bill would allow any person to bring an action against an entity to enforce these provisions. Existing law generally regulates employment, including, but not limited to, the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees. This bill would prohibit an employer from knowingly or intentionally employing an unauthorized alien, as specified. The bill would establish a process for persons to file complaints of violations of these provisions with the Attorney General or a district attorney. The bill would make it a misdemeanor to make a false and frivolous complaint alleging a violation of these provisions by an employer. The bill would provide for the investigation of these complaints and specify consequences, including the suspension of certain licenses, for employers that violate these provisions. The bill would require every employer to verify the employment eligibility of employees through the federal E-Verify program and require employers to participate in the federal E-Verify program in order to be eligible for economic development incentives, as specified. Because this bill would impose new duties on local governments and district attorneys, it would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, held unenforceable as preempted by federal law in the case of League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson (1997) 977 F.Supp. 1244, requires every law enforcement agency, with respect to any person who is arrested and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, to, among other things, attempt to verify the legal status of such person and notify the Attorney General and federal authorities of any apparent illegal status. Existing law makes it a felony, punishable in the state prison for 5 years and a fine of $25,000, for any person to use false documents to conceal his or her true citizenship or resident alien status. This bill would make it a misdemeanor for a person to be present on any public or private land while at the same time the person is in violation of specified federal immigration laws. The bill would make it a felony to be in violation of this provision if the person is in possession of specified drugs, weapons, or property, as specified. The bill would make it a felony for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of a human being for profit or commercial purposes, as specified, and would provide differing penalties depending on the circumstances of the offense. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for an occupant of a motor vehicle to attempt to hire persons for work if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor to enter a motor vehicle in order to be hired by an occupant if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien, as defined, to knowingly apply for or solicit work or perform work as an employee or independent contractor. The bill would make it a misdemeanor to transport or move or attempt to transport or move an alien when the person knows, or recklessly disregards the fact, that the alien is in the United States unlawfully, as specified. The bill would make it a misdemeanor to conceal, harbor, or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield an alien from detection if the person knows, or recklessly disregards the fact, that the alien is in the United States unlawfully, as specified. The bill would make it a misdemeanor to encourage or induce an alien to come to, or reside in, this state if the person knows, or recklessly disregards the fact, that the alien would be entering or residing in this state unlawfully. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a felony if the violation involves 10 or more illegal aliens. Because this bill would create various new crimes, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require a peace officer to cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle while the person is engaged in certain acts involving an alien unlawfully in the United States, as specified. The bill would establish the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund to be funded as specified, and administered by the Department of Justice to be used, upon appropriation, for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursements relating to illegal immigration. 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. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 2924.8 of the Civil Code, and to Amend Sections 415.46 and 1161b of the Code of Civil Procedure, Relating to Tenants. AB 2610 (2011-2012) SkinnerSupportYes
(1)Existing law requires a notice of sale to be posted before any power of sale can be exercised under the power of sale contained in any deed of trust or mortgage. Existing law, until January 1,… More
(1)Existing law requires a notice of sale to be posted before any power of sale can be exercised under the power of sale contained in any deed of trust or mortgage. Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a resident of property upon which a notice of sale has been posted to be provided a specified notice advising the resident that, among other things, if the person is renting the property, the new property owner may either give the tenant a new lease or rental agreement, or provide the tenant with a 60-day eviction notice, and that other laws may prohibit the eviction or provide the tenant with a longer notice before eviction. Existing law makes it an infraction to tear down the notice within 72 hours of posting. Existing law requires a state government entity to make translations of the notice available in 5 specified languages, for use by a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent, in order to satisfy the notice requirements. This bill would revise certain portions of the notice to instead require a resident of property upon which a notice of sale has been posted to be advised that if the person is renting the property, the new property owner may either give the tenant a new lease or rental agreement, or provide the tenant with a 90-day eviction notice. The bill would require the notice to advise a tenant who has a lease that the new property owner is required to honor the lease unless the new owner will occupy the property as a primary residence or under other limited circumstances. The bill would require the Department of Consumer Affairs to make translations of the notice available, as described above. The bill would provide that these changes to the notice would become operative on March 1, 2013, or 60 days following posting of a dated notice incorporating those amendments on the Department of Consumer Affairs Internet Web site, whichever date is later. The bill would extend the operation of these provisions until December 31, 2019. By extending the operation of provisions establishing a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2)Existing law provides, that in an unlawful detainer action, if an owner or owner’s agent has obtained service of a prejudgment claim of right to possession, as specified, no occupant of the premises, whether or not that occupant is named in the judgment for possession, may object to the enforcement of the judgment, as specified. This bill would provide that in any action for unlawful detainer resulting from a foreclosure sale of a rental housing unit pursuant to specified provisions, the above provisions regarding objection to the enforcement of a judgment do not limit the right of a tenant or subtenant to file a prejudgment claim of right of possession or to object to enforcement of a judgment for possession, regardless of whether the tenant or subtenant was served with a prejudgment claim of right to possession, as specified. (3)Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a tenant or subtenant in possession of a rental housing unit at the time that property is sold in foreclosure to be provided 60 days’ written notice to quit before the tenant or subtenant may be removed from the property, as specified. This bill would instead require a tenant or subtenant in possession of a rental housing unit under a month-to-month lease at the time that property is sold in foreclosure to be provided 90 days’ written notice to quit before the tenant or subtenant may be removed from the property. The bill would provide tenants or subtenants holding possession of a rental housing unit under a fixed-term residential lease entered into before transfer of title at the foreclosure sale the right to possession until the end of the lease term, except in specified circumstances. The bill would also extend the operation of these provisions until December 31, 2019. (4)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. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Relating to Appeals. AB 271 (2011-2012) NestandeOpposeNo
Existing law specifies the judgments and orders from which an appeal may be taken to the court of appeal. Existing law also provides that, if the consent of any person who should have been joined as… More
Existing law specifies the judgments and orders from which an appeal may be taken to the court of appeal. Existing law also provides that, if the consent of any person who should have been joined as a plaintiff cannot be obtained, the person may be made a defendant. This bill would require an appellate court to permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class action certification to join a defendant pursuant to those provisions if the petition to appeal is filed within 14 days of entry of the order. Hide
An Act to Add Section 18410 To, and to Repeal and Add Section 19135 Of, the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Taxation. AB 318 (2011-2012) SkinnerSupportYes
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law establish specified dates for the filing of tax returns, and provide that if the last day for filing a return falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or… More
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law establish specified dates for the filing of tax returns, and provide that if the last day for filing a return falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or other legal holiday, returns may be filed and payments made on the following day without penalty. This bill would conform to federal income tax law regarding the definition of a legal holiday for the purposes of the Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law. The Corporation Tax Law imposes taxes measured by income at a specified rate. Existing law provides that whenever any foreign corporation that fails to qualify to do business in this state or whose powers, rights, and privileges have been forfeited, or any domestic corporation that has been suspended, and that is doing business in this state, fails to make and file a return, as provided, the Franchise Tax Board shall impose a penalty of $2,000 per taxable year, as specified. This bill would also make this penalty applicable to a foreign limited liability company that fails to qualify to do business in this state or whose powers, rights, and privileges have been forfeited and to a domestic limited liability company that has been suspended and that is doing business in this state, as specified. Hide
AB 325 (2011-2012) LowenthalSupportNo
An Act to Amend Sections 1060, 1061, and 1064 Of, and to Amend the Heading of Chapter 4.5 (Commencing with Section 1060) of Part 3 of Division 2 Of, the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 350 (2011-2012) SolorioSupportNo
Existing law, the Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act, requires contractors and subcontractors, that are awarded contracts or subcontracts by an awarding authority to provide janitorial or building… More
Existing law, the Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act, requires contractors and subcontractors, that are awarded contracts or subcontracts by an awarding authority to provide janitorial or building maintenance services at a particular job site or sites, to retain, for a period of 60 days, certain employees who were employed at that site by the previous contractor or subcontractor. The act requires the successor contractors and subcontractors to offer continued employment to those employees retained for the 60-day period if their performance during that 60-day period is satisfactory. The act authorizes an employee who was not offered employment or who has been discharged in violation of these provisions by a successor contractor or successor subcontractor, or an agent of the employee, to bring an action against a successor contractor or successor subcontractor in any superior court of the state having jurisdiction over the successor contractor or successor subcontractor, as specified. This bill would rename the act the Displaced Property Service Employee Opportunity Act and make the provisions of the act applicable to property services, which would consist of licensed security, as defined, window cleaning, food cafeteria and dietary services, janitorial services, and building maintenance services. This bill would exclude from the definitions of “contractor” and “subcontractor” specified types of food service providers. The bill also would make conforming changes. Hide
An Act to Add Section 3212.13 to the Labor Code, Relating to Workers’ Compensation. AB 375 (2011-2012) SkinnerSupportNo
Existing law provides that an injury of an employee arising out of and in the course of employment is generally compensable through the workers’ compensation system. Existing law provides that, in… More
Existing law provides that an injury of an employee arising out of and in the course of employment is generally compensable through the workers’ compensation system. Existing law provides that, in the case of certain public employees, the term “injury” includes heart trouble, hernia, pneumonia, human immunodeficiency virus, lower back impairment, and other injuries and diseases. This bill would provide, with respect to hospital employees who provide direct patient care in an acute care hospital, as defined, that the term “injury” includes a bloodborne infectious disease, as defined, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) that develops or manifests itself during the period of the person’s employment with the hospital. This bill would further create a disputable presumption that the above injury arises out of and in the course of the person’s employment if it develops or manifests as specified. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 226 Of, and to Add Article 1.5 (Commencing with Section 245) to Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 Of, the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 400 (2011-2012) MaSupportNo
Existing law authorizes employers to provide their employees paid sick leave. This bill would provide that an employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year is entitled to… More
Existing law authorizes employers to provide their employees paid sick leave. This bill would provide that an employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year is entitled to paid sick days, as defined, which shall be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked. An employee would be entitled to use accrued sick days beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment. The bill would require employers to provide paid sick days, upon the request of the employee, for diagnosis, care, or treatment of health conditions of the employee or an employee’s family member, or for leave related to domestic violence or sexual assault. An employer would be prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against an employee who requests paid sick days. The bill would require employers to satisfy specified posting and notice and recordkeeping requirements. The bill would also make conforming changes. This bill would require the Labor Commissioner to administer and enforce these requirements, including the promulgation of regulations, investigation, mitigation, and relief of violations of these requirements. This bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to impose specified administrative fines for violations and would authorize an aggrieved person, the commissioner, the Attorney General, or an entity a member of which is aggrieved to bring an action to recover specified civil penalties against an offender, as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. The bill would specify that it does not apply to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement that provides for paid sick days, nor does it lessen any other obligations of the employer to employees. This bill would further specify that it does not apply to employees in the construction industry covered by a collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly waives the requirements of this article in clear and unambiguous terms. However, the bill would specify that it applies to certain public authorities, established to deliver in-home supportive services, except where a collective bargaining agreement provides for an incremental wage increase sufficient to satisfy the bill’s requirements for accrual of sick days. Hide
AB 46 (2011-2012) PerezOpposeNo
An Act to Amend Sections 98, 226, 240, 243, 1174, and 1197.1 Of, and to Add Sections 200.5, 1194.3, 1197.2, 1206, and 2810.5 To, the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 469 (2011-2012) SwansonSupportYes
(1)Existing law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to investigate and enforce statutes and orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission that, among other things, specify the requirements for the… More
(1)Existing law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to investigate and enforce statutes and orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission that, among other things, specify the requirements for the payment of wages by employers. Existing law provides for criminal and civil penalties for violations of statutes and orders of the commission regarding payment of wages. This bill would provide that in addition to being subject to a civil penalty, any employer who pays or causes to be paid to any employee a wage less than the minimum fixed by an order of the commission shall be subject to paying restitution of wages to the employee. This bill would make it a misdemeanor if an employer willfully violates specified wage statutes or orders, or willfully fails to pay a final court judgment or final order of the Labor Commissioner for wages due. (2)Existing law provides that an action by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement within the Department of Industrial Relations for collection of a statutory penalty or fee must be commenced within one year after the penalty or fee became final. This bill would extend the period within which the division may commence a collection action, as defined, from one year to 3 years. (3)Existing law permits the Labor Commissioner to require an employer who has been convicted of a subsequent wage violation or who has failed to satisfy a judgment to post a bond in order to continue business operations. This bill would extend the time required for a subsequently convicted employer to maintain a bond from 6 months to 2 years and would require that a subsequently convicted employer provide an accounting of assets, as specified, to the Labor Commissioner. (4)Existing law requires an employer to post specified wage and hour information in a location where it can be viewed by employees. This bill would require an employer to provide each employee, at the time of hiring, with a notice that specifies the rate and the basis, whether hourly, salary, commission, or otherwise, of the employee’s wages and to notify each employee in writing of any changes to the information set forth in the notice within 7 calendar days of the changes unless such changes are reflected on a timely wage statement or another writing, as specified. No notice would be required for an employee who is employed by the state or any subdivision thereof, exempt from the payment of overtime, or covered by a collective bargaining agreement containing specified information. (5)In addition to the crime and employer obligations imposed by this bill, the Labor Code provides for other work-related standards and duties that, upon violation, are subject to specified penalties. This bill would state that the Labor Code establishes minimum penalties for failure to comply with wage-related statutes and regulations. Because this bill would create a new crime or expand the definition of a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (6)This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 98 of the Labor Code proposed by AB 240, that would become operative only if AB 240 and this bill are both enacted, both bills become effective on or before January 1, 2012, and this bill is enacted last. This bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 226 of the Labor Code proposed by AB 243, that would become operative only if AB 243 and this bill are both enacted, both bills become effective on or before January 1, 2012, and this bill is enacted last. (7)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. Hide
AB 506 (2011-2012) WieckowskiSupportYes
An Act to Amend Sections 215, 225.5, and 226 Of, and to Add Section 213.5 To, the Labor Code, Relating to Payroll Cards. AB 51 (2011-2012) YamadaSupportNo
(1)Existing law prohibits an employer from issuing in payment of wages due certain instruments, including an order, check, draft, note, memorandum, scrip, coupon, card, or other acknowledgment of… More
(1)Existing law prohibits an employer from issuing in payment of wages due certain instruments, including an order, check, draft, note, memorandum, scrip, coupon, card, or other acknowledgment of indebtedness or redeemable instrument, unless specified requirements are satisfied. This bill would authorize an employer to pay an employee’s wages by means of a payroll card, as defined, provided that specified requirements are satisfied. In addition, the bill would make a violation of its provisions a misdemeanor and would subject a violator to specified civil penalties. By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2)Existing law requires an employer to provide employees, at the time wages are paid, with an itemized statement containing specified items regarding the wages earned. This bill would extend the requirement for an itemized statement of wages to an employer who pays his or her employees via payroll cards. 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. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 1386 Of, and to Add Article 6.1 (Commencing with Section 1385.001) to Chapter 2.2 of Division 2 Of, the Health and Safety Code, and to Add Article 4.4 (Commencing with Section 10180.1) to Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, Relating to Health Care Coverage. AB 52 (2011-2012) FeuerSupportNo
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful… More
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Under existing law, no change in premium rates or coverage in a health care service plan or a health insurance policy may become effective without prior written notification of the change to the contractholder or policyholder. Existing law prohibits a health care service plan or health insurer during the term of a group plan contract or policy from changing the rate of the premium, copayment, coinsurance, or deductible during specified time periods. Existing law requires a health care service plan or health insurer that issues individual or group contracts or policies to file with the Department of Managed Health Care or the Department of Insurance specified rate information at least 60 days prior to the effective date of any rate change. This bill would further require a health care service plan or health insurer that issues individual or group contracts or policies to file with the Department of Managed Health Care or the Department of Insurance, on and after January 1, 2012, a complete rate application for any proposed rate, as defined, or rate change, and would prohibit the Department of Managed Health Care or the Department of Insurance from approving any rate or rate change that is found to be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. The bill would require the rate application to include certain rate information. The bill would authorize the Department of Managed Health Care or the Department of Insurance to approve, deny, or modify any proposed rate or rate change, and would authorize the Department of Managed Health Care and the Department of Insurance to review any rate or rate change that went into effect between January 1, 2011, and January 1, 2012, and to order refunds, subject to these provisions. The bill would authorize the imposition of fees on health care service plans and health insurers for purposes of implementation, for deposit into newly created funds, subject to appropriation. The bill would impose civil penalties on a health care service plan or health insurer, and subject a health care service plan to discipline, for a violation of these provisions, as specified. The bill would establish proceedings for the review of any action taken under those provisions related to rate applications and would require the Department of Managed Health Care and the Department of Insurance, and plans and insurers, to disclose specified information on the Internet pertaining to rate applications and those proceedings. The bill would require the Department of Managed Health Care or the Department of Insurance, or the court, to award reasonable advocate’s fees, including expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs in those proceedings under specified circumstances, to be paid by the plan or insurer. Because a willful violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the 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 a specified reason. Hide
AB 559 (2011-2012) SwansonSupportNo
AB 59 (2011-2012) SwansonSupportNo
An Act to Add and Repeal Article 10 (Commencing with Section 99440) of Chapter 4 of Part 11 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code, Relating to Transportation, and Making an Appropriation Therefor. AB 650 (2011-2012) BlumenfieldSupportNo
Existing law establishes various boards and commissions within state government. Existing law establishes various transit districts and other local entities for development of public transit on a… More
Existing law establishes various boards and commissions within state government. Existing law establishes various transit districts and other local entities for development of public transit on a regional basis and makes various state revenues available to those entities for those purposes. Existing law declares that the fostering, continuance, and development of public transportation systems are a matter of statewide concern. The Public Transportation Account is designated as a trust fund and funds in the account shall be available only for specified transportation planning and mass transportation purposes. This bill would establish, until March 30, 2013, the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Public Transportation for the 21st Century. The bill would require the task force to be comprised of 12 members and would require the Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly to each appoint 6 specified members, by January 31, 2012. The bill would require the task force to elect one of its nonlegislative members as chair. The bill would require the task force to issue a written report that contains specified findings and recommendations relating to, among other things, the current state of California’s transit system, the estimated cost of creating the needed system over various terms, and potential sources of funding to sustain the transit system’s needs, and to submit the report by September 30, 2012, to the Governor, the Legislature, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Senate Committee on Rules, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the transportation committees of the Legislature. The bill would require the task force, for purposes of collecting information for the written report, to consult with appropriate state agencies and departments and would require the task force to contract with consultants for preparation of the report. The bill would require the Department of Transportation to provide administrative staffing to the task force. The bill would appropriate $750,000 from the Public Transportation Account to the department, as specified, to accomplish the purposes of these provisions. Hide
AB 889 (2011-2012) AmmianoSupportNo
SB 1195 (2011-2012) PriceOpposeYes
SB 364 (2011-2012) YeeSupportNo
SB 396 (2011-2012) HuffOpposeNo
SB 432 (2011-2012) de LeonSupportNo
An Act to Amend Section 6404.5 of the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. SB 575 (2011-2012) DeSaulnierSupportNo
Existing law prohibits smoking of tobacco products inside an enclosed space, as defined, at a place of employment. The violation of the prohibition against smoking in enclosed spaces of places of… More
Existing law prohibits smoking of tobacco products inside an enclosed space, as defined, at a place of employment. The violation of the prohibition against smoking in enclosed spaces of places of employment is an infraction punishable by a specified fine. This bill would expand the prohibition on smoking in a place of employment to include an owner-operated business, as defined. This bill would also eliminate most of the specified exemptions that permit smoking in certain work environments, such as hotel lobbies, bars and taverns, banquet rooms, warehouse facilities, private residences used as family day care homes, and employee break rooms. By expanding the scope of an infraction, 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Add Section 2503 to the Public Contract Code, Relating to Public Contracts. SB 829 (2011-2012) RubioSupportYes
Existing law sets forth the requirements for the solicitation and evaluation of bids and the awarding of contracts by public entities and authorizes a public entity to use, enter into, or require… More
Existing law sets forth the requirements for the solicitation and evaluation of bids and the awarding of contracts by public entities and authorizes a public entity to use, enter into, or require contractors to enter into, a project labor agreement for a construction project if the agreement includes specified taxpayer protection provisions. Existing law also provides that if a charter provision, initiative, or ordinance of a charter city prohibits the governing board’s consideration of a project labor agreement for a project to be awarded by the city, or prohibits the governing board from considering whether to allocate funds to a city-funded project covered by such an agreement, state funding or financial assistance may not be used to support that project, as specified. This bill would additionally provide that if a charter provision, initiative, or ordinance of a charter city prohibits, limits, or constrains in any way the governing board’s authority or discretion to adopt, require, or utilize a project labor agreement that includes specified taxpayer protection provisions for some or all of the construction projects to be awarded by the city, state funding or financial assistance may not be used to support any construction projects awarded by the city, as specified. Hide
An Act to Amend and Add Sections 2923.5 and 2923.6 Of, to Amend and Repeal Section 2924 Of, to Add Sections 2920.5, 2923.4, 2923.7, 2924.17, and 2924.20 To, to Add and Repeal Sections 2923.55, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.18, and 2924.19 Of, and to Add, Repeal, and Add Sections 2924.11, 2924.12, and 2924.15 Of, the Civil Code, Relating to Mortgages. SB 900 (2011-2012) LenoSupportYes
(1)Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower prior to filing a notice of default to explore options for the borrower… More
(1)Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower prior to filing a notice of default to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure, as specified. Existing law requires a notice of default or, in certain circumstances, a notice of sale, to include a declaration stating that the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the borrower, has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower, or that no contact was required for a specified reason. This bill would add mortgage servicers, as defined, to these provisions and would extend the operation of these provisions indefinitely, except that it would delete the requirement with respect to a notice of sale. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, additionally require the borrower, as defined, to be provided with specified information in writing prior to recordation of a notice of default and, in certain circumstances, within 5 business days after recordation. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording a notice of default or, until January 1, 2018, recording a notice of sale or conducting a trustee’s sale while a complete first lien loan modification application is pending, under specified conditions. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, establish additional procedures to be followed regarding a first lien loan modification application, the denial of an application, and a borrower’s right to appeal a denial. (2)Existing law imposes various requirements that must be satisfied prior to exercising a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust, including, among other things, recording a notice of default and a notice of sale. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, require a written notice to the borrower after the postponement of a foreclosure sale in order to advise the borrower of any new sale date and time, as specified. The bill would provide that an entity shall not record a notice of default or otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust, the original or substituted trustee, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial interest, as specified. The bill would prohibit recordation of a notice of default or a notice of sale or the conduct of a trustee’s sale if a foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved and certain conditions exist and would, until January 1, 2018, require recordation of a rescission of those notices upon execution of a permanent foreclosure prevention alternative. The bill would until January 1, 2018, prohibit the collection of application fees and the collection of late fees while a foreclosure prevention alternative is being considered, if certain criteria are met, and would require a subsequent mortgage servicer to honor any previously approved foreclosure prevention alternative. The bill would authorize a borrower to seek an injunction and damages for violations of certain of the provisions described above, except as specified. The bill would authorize the greater of treble actual damages or $50,000 in statutory damages if a violation of certain provisions is found to be intentional or reckless or resulted from willful misconduct, as specified. The bill would authorize the awarding of attorneys’ fees for prevailing borrowers, as specified. Violations of these provisions by licensees of the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate would also be violations of those respective licensing laws. Because a violation of certain of those licensing laws is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that the requirements imposed on mortgage servicers, and mortgagees, trustees, beneficiaries, and authorized agents, described above are applicable only to mortgages or deeds of trust secured by residential real property not exceeding 4 dwelling units that is owner-occupied, as defined, and, until January 1, 2018, only to those entities who conduct more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period, except as specified. The bill would require, upon request from a borrower who requests a foreclosure prevention alternative, a mortgage servicer who conducts more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period to establish a single point of contact and provide the borrower with one or more direct means of communication with the single point of contact. The bill would specify various responsibilities of the single point of contact. The bill would define single point of contact for these purposes. (3)Existing law prescribes documents that may be recorded or filed in court. This bill would require that a specified declaration, notice of default, notice of sale, deed of trust, assignment of a deed of trust, substitution of trustee, or declaration or affidavit filed in any court relative to a foreclosure proceeding or recorded by or on behalf of a mortgage servicer shall be accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence. The bill would require that, before recording or filing any of those documents, a mortgage servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and the right to foreclose, including the borrower’s loan status and loan information. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, provide that any mortgage servicer that engages in multiple and repeated violations of these requirements shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to $7,500 per mortgage or deed of trust, in an action brought by specified state and local government entities, and would also authorize administrative enforcement against licensees of the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate. The bill would authorize the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate to adopt regulations applicable to persons and entities under their respective jurisdictions for purposes of the provisions described above. The bill would provide that a violation of those regulations would be enforceable only by the regulating agency. (4)The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature in relation to foreclosures in the state generally, and would state the purposes of the bill. (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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 215 and 225.5 Of, and to Add Section 213.5 To, the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. SB 931 (2011-2012) EvansSupportNo
Existing law prohibits an employer from issuing in payment of wages due certain instruments, including an order, check, draft, note, memorandum, scrip, coupon, card, or other acknowledgment of… More
Existing law prohibits an employer from issuing in payment of wages due certain instruments, including an order, check, draft, note, memorandum, scrip, coupon, card, or other acknowledgment of indebtedness or redeemable instrument, unless specified requirements are satisfied. This bill would authorize an employer to pay an employee’s wages by means of a payroll card, as defined, provided that specified requirements are satisfied. In addition, the bill would make a violation of its provisions a misdemeanor and would subject a violator to specified civil penalties. By creating new crimes, 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Add Sections 2704.045 and 2704.096 to the Streets and Highways Code, Relating to Transportation Bonds, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately. SB 985 (2011-2012) La MalfaOpposeNo
Article XVI of the California Constitution requires a general obligation bond act to specify the single object or work to be funded by the bonds, and further requires a bond act to be approved by a… More
Article XVI of the California Constitution requires a general obligation bond act to specify the single object or work to be funded by the bonds, and further requires a bond act to be approved by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and by a majority of the voters. Article XVI authorizes the Legislature, at any time after the approval of a general obligation bond act by the voters, to reduce the amount of the indebtedness authorized by the act to an amount not less than the amount contracted at the time of the reduction or to repeal the act if no debt has been contracted. Existing law, pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, approved by the voters as Proposition 1A at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, provides for the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for high-speed rail and related rail purposes. Existing law creates the High-Speed Rail Authority with specified powers and duties related to the development and implementation of a high-speed train system. This bill would provide that no further bonds shall be sold for high-speed rail and related rail purposes pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century. The bill would amend the bond act to authorize redirection of the net proceeds received from outstanding bonds issued and sold prior to the effective date of this act, upon appropriation by the Legislature, from those high-speed rail purposes to retiring the debt incurred from the issuance and sale of those outstanding bonds. This bill would provide that, pursuant to Article XVI of the California Constitution, these provisions shall become effective only upon approval by the voters at the next statewide general election. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 226, 233, and 234 Of, and to Add Article 1.5 (Commencing with Section 245) to Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 Of, the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 1000 (2009-2010) MaSupportNo
Existing law authorizes employers to provide their employees paid sick leave. This bill would provide that an employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year is entitled to… More
Existing law authorizes employers to provide their employees paid sick leave. This bill would provide that an employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year is entitled to paid sick days, as defined, which shall be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked. An employee would be entitled to use accrued sick days beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment. The bill would require employers to provide paid sick days, upon the request of the employee, for diagnosis, care, or treatment of health conditions of the employee or an employee’s family member, or for leave related to domestic violence or sexual assault. An employer would be prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against an employee who requests paid sick days. The bill would require employers to satisfy specified posting and notice and recordkeeping requirements. The bill would also make conforming changes. This bill would require the Labor Commissioner to administer and enforce these requirements, including the promulgation of regulations, investigation, mitigation, and relief of violations of these requirements. This bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to impose specified administrative fines for violations and would authorize an aggrieved person, the commissioner, the Attorney General, or an entity a member of which is aggrieved to bring an action to recover specified civil penalties against an offender, as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. The bill would specify that it does not apply to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement that provides for paid sick days, nor does it lessen any other obligations of the employer to employees. This bill would further specify that it does not apply to employees in the construction industry covered by a collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly waives the requirements of this article in clear and unambiguous terms. However, the bill would specify that it applies to certain public authorities, established to deliver in-home supportive services, except where a collective bargaining agreement provides for an incremental wage increase sufficient to satisfy the bill’s requirements for accrual of sick days. Hide
An Act to Add Chapter 3.5 (Commencing with Section 110286) to Part 5 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Food and Drug Safety. AB 1512 (2009-2010) LieuSupportNo
Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, contains various provisions regarding the contents, packaging, labeling, and advertising of food, drugs, and cosmetics. A violation of any of… More
Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, contains various provisions regarding the contents, packaging, labeling, and advertising of food, drugs, and cosmetics. A violation of any of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would prohibit a retailer from selling or permitting to be sold after the “use by” date infant formula, as defined, or baby food, as defined, that is required to have this date on its packaging pursuant to federal law. It would also prohibit a retailer from selling or permitting to be sold after the expiration date an over the counter drug, as defined, that is required to have this expiration date on its packaging pursuant to that federal law. A violation of these provisions would, notwithstanding the above-described penalty, be punishable as an infraction with a specified fine. By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that local and state authorities should make reasonable efforts to notify the public about potential threats to public safety resulting from the sale of expired products and, for public purchasers of expired products, to contact their respective state or local authorities. 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. Hide
An Act to Add Chapter 1.7 (Commencing with Section 6096) to Division 7 of the Government Code, Relating to State Promotions. AB 1778 (2009-2010) LieuSupportNo
Existing law establishes the California Tourism Marketing Act as a means of funding generic promotion of this state as a tourism destination. This bill would require any department, commission,… More
Existing law establishes the California Tourism Marketing Act as a means of funding generic promotion of this state as a tourism destination. This bill would require any department, commission, office, agency, or other administrative entity of the state that produces, or contracts for the production of, a promotional commercial for the state or a product of the state, and finances that commercial in whole or in part with public funds, to film that commercial in this state. The bill would except from its provisions agreements to feature or promote California products in a program made by a private entity, as specified. Hide
An Act to Add Section 1199.6 to the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 2187 (2009-2010) ArambulaSupportNo
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person or employer who, having the ability to pay, willfully refuses to pay wages due to a current employee, an employee who has resigned, or an employee who… More
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person or employer who, having the ability to pay, willfully refuses to pay wages due to a current employee, an employee who has resigned, or an employee who has been discharged. Under existing law, an aggrieved employee has the right to restitution for unpaid wages. Existing law also imposes civil penalties against a person or employer who wrongfully fails to pay wages. This bill would create a separate prohibition against a person or an employer who, having the ability to pay, willfully fails to pay all wages due to an employee who has been discharged or who has quit within 90 days of the date of the wages becoming due, unless exempted, and would impose additional criminal penalties for that conduct. The bill would also require a person or employer who violates these provisions to pay restitution in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages to the aggrieved employee upon conviction. Because this bill would create a new crime, it 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 23001, 23027, and 23035 Of, and to Add Sections 23005.5, 23010.5, 23016.5, and 23036.5 To, the Financial Code, Relating to Deferred Deposit Transactions. AB 377 (2009-2010) MendozaOpposeNo
Existing law, the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Corporations of persons engaged in the business of making or… More
Existing law, the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Corporations of persons engaged in the business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from making false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements regarding its business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from placing an advertisement disseminated primarily in this state for a deferred deposit transaction unless the licensee discloses that it is licensed by the Department of Corporations. Existing law authorizes the commissioner to require a licensee to maintain a file of its advertisements for a period of 90 days. Existing law provides that a customer who enters into a deferred deposit transaction shall not be subject to criminal penalties for failure to comply with the terms of a deferred deposit transaction agreement. Existing law authorizes a licensee to defer the deposit of a customer’s personal check for up to 31 days and provides that the face amount of the check shall not exceed $300. Existing law requires an agreement to enter into a deferred deposit transaction to be in writing and to include specified information and disclosures. Existing law authorizes a licensee to allow an extension of time, or a payment plan, for repayment of an existing deferred deposit transaction, as specified. A willful violation of the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law is a crime. This bill would require specified applicants for licensure under the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, including, but not limited to, corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships, to include in their applications fingerprints and a completed statement of identity and questionnaire, as specified, for certain individuals, and other information, as specified. The bill would require a licensee to notify the department in writing of changes to the individuals named in the licensee’s original application for licensure or if the licensee or any of those individuals has been found to have violated the laws of another state relative to deferred deposit transactions. The bill would also require a licensee to notify the department in writing when offering a new product or service that will generate more than 5% of the revenues of an office. The bill would make advertisements on the Internet by a licensee subject to the provisions regulating deferred deposit transaction advertisements and would require a licensee to maintain a file of all advertising copy currently in use for a period of 2 years from the date of itsfinal use. The bill would authorize the face amount of a check for a deferred deposit transaction to be up to $500. The bill would prohibit a deferred deposit transaction customer from being threatened with criminal penalties for a failure to comply with the terms of an agreement and would prohibit a licensee from referring or delivering a check taken in a deferred deposit transaction to a prosecutor, district attorney’s diversion program, or other law enforcement official for purposes of collection or criminal prosecution unless that information is requested as part of an investigation. The bill would require a specified notice that is separate and distinct from the deferred deposit transaction agreement to be provided to and initialed by a customer before entering into the agreement. The bill would require the notice to inform the customer that he or she may rescind a deferred deposit transaction at no cost by notifying the licensee and returning the proceeds of the transaction within a specified time period. The bill would also require a licensee to make reasonable and accessible provisions for a customer to notify the licensee of his or her intent to rescind the transaction and return the loan proceeds and would require these provisions to be included with this notice. The bill would require that, if the deferred deposit transaction is conducted over the Internet, the customer shall agree in the written agreement to conduct the transaction and to receive notices and the agreement electronically. The bill would also require a licensee, when conducting deferred deposit transactions over the Internet, to make notices and the agreement available to a customer in a format that may be downloaded and printed or, if the customer is unable to download that information, to mail the documents to the customer within 24 hours of the transaction. The bill would require a licensee to annually pay a fee to the commissioner of 5 cents for each deferred deposit transaction paid in full in the previous calendar year and would require the money from these fees to be used by the commissioner to provide financial literacy education programs relative to deferred deposit transactions. The bill would authorize a customer who is unable to repay a deferred deposit transaction to elect, once in any 12-month period, to repay the deferred deposit transaction to the licensee pursuant to an extended payment plan, as specified. The bill would require a customer to be notified of his or her right to an extended payment plan. Because a willful violation of the bill’s provisions by a licensee would be a crime, the 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 a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Add Chapter 3.6 (Commencing with Section 1024.5) to Part 3 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 482 (2009-2010) MendozaSupportNo
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the state Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act define and regulate consumer credit reports and authorize the use of consumer credit reports for… More
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the state Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act define and regulate consumer credit reports and authorize the use of consumer credit reports for employment purposes, pursuant to specified requirements. The FCRA provides that it does not preempt state law, except as specifically provided or to the extent that state laws are inconsistent with its provisions. Existing federal and state law specify the procedures that an employer is required to follow before requesting a report and if adverse action is taken based on the report. Under existing law, an employer may request a credit report for employment purposes so long as he or she provides written notice of the request to the person for whom the report is sought. Existing law requires that the written notice inform the person for whom the consumer credit report was sought of the source of the report and contain space for the person to request a copy of the report. Existing law further requires an employer, whenever he or she bases an adverse employment decision on information contained in a consumer credit report, to advise the person for whom the report was sought that an adverse action was taken based upon information contained in the report and provide the person with the name and address of the consumer credit agency making the report. This bill would prohibit an employer, with the exception of certain financial institutions, from obtaining a consumer credit report for employment purposes unless the information is (1) substantially job-related, meaning that the position of the person for whom the report is sought has access to money, other assets, or trade secrets or other confidential information, and (2) the position of the person for whom the report is sought is a position in the state Department of Justice, a managerial position, that of a sworn peace officer or other law enforcement position, or a position for which the information contained in the report is required to be disclosed by law or to be obtained by the employer. Hide
Relative to the Colombia-United States Free Trade Agreement. AJR 27 (2009-2010) TorricoSupportYes
This measure would urge the United States Congress to oppose a free trade agreement between the United States and Colombia.
An Act to Amend Section 554 of the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. SB 1121 (2009-2010) FlorezSupportNo
Existing law sets wage and hour requirements for employees and requires an employer to pay overtime wages as specified to an employee who works in excess of a workday or workweek, as defined.… More
Existing law sets wage and hour requirements for employees and requires an employer to pay overtime wages as specified to an employee who works in excess of a workday or workweek, as defined. Existing law exempts agricultural employees from these requirements. This bill would remove the exemption for agricultural employees. Hide
An Act to Add Division 8.9 (Commencing with Section 22992) to the Business and Professions Code, and to Amend Sections 6592 and 6901 Of, to Add Section 6471.5 To, and to Add Article 1.7 (Commencing with Section 6480.50) to Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 Of, the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Cannabis. SB 1131 (2009-2010) CalderonSupportNo
Existing law provides for the licensure by the State Board of Equalization of manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, importers, and retailers of cigarettes or tobacco products that are engaged in… More
Existing law provides for the licensure by the State Board of Equalization of manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, importers, and retailers of cigarettes or tobacco products that are engaged in business in California, and prohibits retailers, manufacturers, distributors, and wholesalers from distributing or selling those cigarette and tobacco products unless they are licensed. Existing law also imposes a tax on the gross receipts from the sale in this state of, or the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. This bill would create the Sales Tax Enforcement Act of 2010 and provide for the certification by the State Board of Equalization of growers, wholesalers, retailers, and transporters of cannabis or cannabis products that are engaged in business in California. The bill would require these certificated growers, wholesalers, retailers, and transporters to keep records of every sale, transfer, or delivery of cannabis or cannabis products, as specified. The bill would authorize any peace officer and specified employees of the board to conduct inspections, as provided. It would prohibit growers, wholesalers, retailers, and transporters from selling or purchasing cannabis or cannabis products without a certificate. The bill would provide for the seizure of cannabis or cannabis products that are sold or purchased in violation of specified provisions and impose specified penalties therefor, including certificate revocation or suspension, civil penalties, and criminal penalties. By imposing criminal penalties, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would require each wholesaler to prepay the retail sales tax on its gross receipts derived from the sale of cannabis and cannabis products, as specified. This bill would create the Cannabis and Cannabis Products Compliance Fund, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 2923.5 Of, and to Add and Repeal Sections 2923.4, 2923.7, 2923.73, 2923.75, and 2923.77 Of, the Civil Code, Relating to Mortgages. SB 1275 (2009-2010) LenoSupportNo
Existing law, until January 1, 2013, and as applied to mortgages and deeds of trust recorded between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2007, that are secured by owner-occupied residential real… More
Existing law, until January 1, 2013, and as applied to mortgages and deeds of trust recorded between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2007, that are secured by owner-occupied residential real property containing no more than 4 dwelling units, requires a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower, as defined, prior to filing a notice of default, in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. Existing law requires the notice of default to include a specified declaration from the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent regarding its contact with the borrower. This bill would, until January 1, 2013, extend those requirements for those types of dwellings to apply to mortgages or deeds of trust recorded prior to January 1, 2009, if the loans are required to be reviewed under federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) guidelines, or between January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2009, if the loans are not required to be reviewed under HAMP guidelines. The bill would require a mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent, within a specified time period prior to the filing of a notice of default, to provide the borrower with written information regarding loan modifications and a specified notice regarding the borrower’s rights during the foreclosure process, subject to specified exceptions. The bill would require an unspecified state entity to make that notice available in English and specified languages. The bill would further revise the borrower contact requirements described above by requiring a mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to make reasonable borrower solicitation efforts, as specified, to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. The bill would prohibit a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent from filing a notice of default until the borrower has been evaluated and determined to be ineligible for a loan modification or the borrower has failed to submit an application prior to the passing of the deadline. The bill would specify minimum time periods in which the borrower may submit an application or supplemental information for a loan modification, and would require the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent, if it denies the application, to send a denial explanation letter within a specified time period. These requirements would not apply to a mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent that has no loan modification option available to the borrower or to a grandfathered party, as defined. This bill would further require, until January 1, 2013, with respect to those properties described above, that a mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent, concurrently with the filing of a notice of default, record a declaration of compliance that attests to specified facts relating to its borrower solicitation and foreclosure avoidance efforts, except as provided. The bill would authorize the borrower to bring an action within one year of the trustee sale to void the foreclosure or request an injunction if, among other things, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent records a notice of default without completing reasonable borrower solicitation efforts, or to recover specified damages if the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent fails to record a declaration of compliance or materially comply with specified provisions, if specified conditions exist. The bill would provide that a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall have no civil liability if it satisfies specified requirements prior to the initiation of legal action by the borrower. Hide
An Act to Add Sections 17060 and 23603 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Taxation. SB 1391 (2009-2010) YeeSupportNo
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law authorize various credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and other tax benefits with respect to the taxes imposed by those laws. This… More
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law authorize various credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and other tax benefits with respect to the taxes imposed by those laws. This bill would require a taxpayer, as described, doing business in California that claims a business tax incentive, as provided, to submit to the Franchise Tax Board on the original return specified information, including the number of employees employed by the taxpayer in the state. The bill would also require, in cases in which a taxpayer has a disqualifying event resulting in a net decrease in the number of full-time employees for a business tax incentive added by statute on or after January 1, 2011, the business tax incentive to be recaptured, and the taxable amount computed in accordance with specified procedures. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 512 of the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. SB 287 (2009-2010) CalderonOpposeNo
Existing law requires an employer to provide an employee who works more than 5 hours in a workday with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, unless the employee works no more than 6 hours in a… More
Existing law requires an employer to provide an employee who works more than 5 hours in a workday with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, unless the employee works no more than 6 hours in a workday and the meal period is waived by mutual consent. An employer also is required to provide an employee who works more than 10 hours in a workday with a 2nd meal period of not less than 30 minutes, unless the employee works no more than 12 hours, the first meal period was not waived, and the 2nd meal period is waived by mutual consent. The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) of the Department of Industrial Relations adopts and amends wage orders that, among other things, specify how meal periods are required to be provided to covered employees within various industries, including the procedures for providing employees with on-duty meal periods. This bill would revise the statutory requirements for the provision of meal periods to specify that the requirements apply only to employees subject to the meal period provisions of an order of the IWC. The statutory requirements for providing the meal periods would be revised to specify that a meal period based on working more than 5 hours in a workday is required to be provided before the employee completes 6 hours of work, unless the existing waiver provision is invoked. The waiver provision for the 2nd meal period would be changed to provide an exception for different provisions within IWC wage orders in effect as of January 1, 2009, and to permit the employer and employee to agree to waive either the first or the 2nd meal period if the employee otherwise is entitled to 2 meal periods. The bill also would specify conditions under which on-duty meal periods are permitted rather than meal periods in which the employee is relieved of all duty. The meal period provisions of a valid collective bargaining agreement would be required to be implemented for covered employees rather than the statutory requirements. The bill would require that orders of the IWC be interpreted in a manner consistent with this section, and would require the Department of Industrial Relations to amend and republish specified IWC wage orders to be consistent with the revised meal period requirements. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 1748.30 Of, and to Add Section 1748.33 To, the Civil Code, Relating to Debit Cards. SB 933 (2009-2010) OropezaSupportNo
Existing law prohibits a retailer from imposing a surcharge on a credit cardholder who elects to use a credit card instead of paying by cash, check or similar means, as provided. Existing law also… More
Existing law prohibits a retailer from imposing a surcharge on a credit cardholder who elects to use a credit card instead of paying by cash, check or similar means, as provided. Existing law also provides that any retailer who imposes a surcharge and who fails to pay that amount to the cardholder within 30 days of written demand is liable for 3 times the amount at which actual damages are assessed. The cardholder is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the action. Existing law exempts from these provisions charges for payment made to an electrical, gas, or water corporation. Existing law also regulates the use of debit cards, as defined. This bill would make these provisions applicable to a retailer in any sales, service, or lease transaction with a consumer who elects to use a debit card instead of paying by cash, check, or similar means. This bill would also include a prepaid card or other means of access to prepaid funds, as provided, in the definition of debit card. Hide