Unlawful employment practices: discrimination for time off.
Position Request – OPPOSE
Platform Citation – Employer/Employee Relations ER-7
Analysis – This bill touches on a delicate matter that could have potentially wide ramifications for businesses. While the protections for criminal victims are just, the expanded definition of “qualifying act of violence” and victims expanded to family members of employees can amount to excessive burdens on businesses and should be more specifically defined.
Bill information
Status: 04/16/2024 – From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (April 16).
Summary: Existing law, subject to specified requirements for the employee, prohibits an employer from discharging or in any manner discriminating against an employee for taking time off to serve on a jury, an employee who is a victim of a crime for taking time off to appear in court as a witness in any judicial proceeding, an employee who is a victim for taking time off from work to obtain or attempt to obtain prescribed relief, or an employee because of the employee’s status as a victim of crime or abuse. Existing law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, who requests an accommodation for the safety of the victim while at work. Existing law requires reinstatement and reimbursement for discrimination or retaliation, as prescribed. Existing law makes an employer’s willful refusal to restore an employee or former employee who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring or promotion by a grievance procedure or hearing authorized by law guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law authorizes an employee who is discriminated or retaliated against because the employee has exercised these rights to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement of the Department of Industrial Relations. Existing law defines terms for these purposes. Existing law, subject to specified requirements for the employee, also prohibits an employer with 25 or more employees from discharging, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against, an employee who is a victim, for taking time off from work to seek medical attention for injuries caused by crime or abuse, to obtain certain services as a result of the crime or abuse or related to an experience of crime or abuse, or to participate in safety planning and take other actions to increase safety from future crime or abuse. This bill would revise and recast the jury, court, and victim time off provisions for employees as unlawful employment practices within the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and, thus, within the enforcement authority of the Civil Rights Department. The bill would remove the threshold of 25 or more employees from the provisions for victims of crime or abuse and, except as specified, apply its provisions to a person who directly employs one or more persons to perform services for a wage or salary. The bill would refer to a “qualifying act of violence,” as defined, instead of crime, or crime or abuse. The bill would substantially revise existing definitions for its purposes, including defining “victim” as an individual against whom a qualifying act of violence is committed. The bill would prohibit an employer from discharging or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against an employee who is a victim or who has a family member who is a victim for taking time off from work to obtain or attempt to obtain any relief. The bill would prohibit an employer from discharging or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against an employee who is a victim or who has a family member who is a victim from taking time off from work for any of a number of prescribed purposes relating to a qualifying act of violence. The bill would expand the eligibility for reasonable accommodations to include an employee who is a victim or whose family member is a victim of a qualifying act of violence. The bill would omit the reinstatement and reimbursement provisions included in existing law. The bill would require an employer to inform each employee of their rights under the bill, to be provided to new employees upon hire, to all employees annually, at any time upon request, and any time the employer becomes newly aware that an employee or an employee’s family member is a victim. The bill would require the department to develop and post, on or before January 1, 2025, a form, as prescribed, that an employer may use to comply with that requirement. The bill would make a number of conforming changes to implement these provisions. This bill contains other existing laws. (Based on 04/09/2024 text)
Employer communications during nonworking hours.
Position Request – OPPOSE
Platform Citation – Employer/Employee Relations ER-7
Analysis – The relationship between employer and employee is a delicate matter and this bill infringes on a business owner from constructing a culture that works with their industry. There is no justification for this level of involvement from the State government and employees should instead set this expectation with their employers ahead of time.
Bill information
Status: 04/01/2024 – Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.
Summary: Existing law, including statutory provisions and orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, as enforced by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, regulates the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees. Existing law makes it a crime for an employer to require or cause any employee to work for longer hours than those fixed or under conditions of labor prohibited by an order of the commission or to violate or refuse or neglect to comply with specified statutes on wages, hours, and working conditions or any order or ruling of the commission.This bill would require a public or private employer to establish a workplace policy that provides employees the right to disconnect from communications from the employer during nonworking hours, except as specified. The bill would define the “right to disconnect” to mean that, except for an emergency or for scheduling, as defined, an employee has the right to ignore communications from the employer during nonworking hours. The bill would require nonworking hours to be established by written agreement between an employer and employee. The bill would authorize an employee to file a complaint of a pattern of violation of the bill’s provisions with the Labor Commissioner, punishable by a specified civil penalty. (Based on 03/21/2024 text)
Digital Advertising Services Tax Law.
Position Request – OPPOSE
Platform Citation – Taxes and Fees TF-7
Analysis – The bill would unconstitutionally limit taxpayers’ speech by prohibiting taxpayers from listing any costs associated with the tax on an invoice, fee, or line item provided to a consumer of digital advertising services. Additionally, the provision to statutorily prevent taxpayers from communicating to their customers about the tax would unnecessarily hinder tax transparency. AB 2829 omits any language regarding the sourcing or apportionment of receipts for the tax. Rather, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration would be responsible for adopting regulations “governing collections, reporting, refunds, and appeals.” Leaving important sourcing rules to the regulatory process ignores the important policy implications of a broad-based digital advertising tax.
Bill information
Status: 04/15/2024 – Re-referred to Coms. on P. & C.P. and REV. & TAX. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.
Summary: Existing law imposes taxes upon income and real property, and taxes upon certain transactions and excise taxes. The Fee Collection Procedures Law provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges and is administered by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Under existing law, a violation of the Fee Collection Procedures Law is a crime. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2025, require a person with at least $100,000,000 in annual gross revenues, as defined, to pay a tax on annual gross revenues that are derived from digital advertising services in the state at a specified rate. The bill would prohibit a taxpayer from directly passing on the cost of the tax to a customer. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that the net proceeds from the tax would be used to fund youth mental health services. The bill would require the department to administer and collect the tax pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law. By expanding the application of the crimes associated with the Fee Collection Procedures Law, 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. 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 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy. (Based on 04/01/2024 text)
Pupil instruction: media literacy: artificial intelligence literacy: curriculum frameworks: instructional materials.
Position Request – SUPPORT
Platform Citation – Workforce Development WD-18
Analysis – Proficiency and understanding with AI will be a necessary skill for the next generation, both as a workforce and as a community. Education goals that seek to get ahead of the curve guarantees that our pupils are receiving the best preparation to contribute to a stable society and a competent economy.
Bill information
Status: 04/10/2024 – Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Summary: Existing law establishes the Instructional Quality Commission and requires the commission to, among other things, recommend curriculum frameworks and the adoption of instructional materials to the State Board of Education. Existing law requires the commission to consider incorporating the Model Library Standards into the next revision of the English language arts/English language development (ELA/ELD) curriculum framework after January 1, 2024, and to also consider incorporating media literacy content at each grade level. Existing law also requires the commission to consider incorporating media literacy content into the mathematics, science, and history-social science curriculum frameworks when those frameworks are next revised after January 1, 2024. Existing law defines media literacy, for that purpose, as the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and use media and information and encompasses the foundational skills that lead to digital citizenship. This bill would require the commission to consider including the Model Library Standards, including media literacy content, in its criteria for evaluating instructional materials when the state board next adopts ELA/ELD instructional materials, as provided. The bill would require the commission to consider including media literacy content in its criteria for evaluating instructional materials when the state board next adopts mathematics, science, and history-social science instructional materials, as provided. The bill would also require the commission to consider incorporating Artificial Intelligence (AI) literacy content into the mathematics, science, and history-social science curriculum frameworks when those frameworks are next revised after January 1, 2025, and would require the commission to consider including AI literacy in its criteria for evaluating instructional materials when the state board next adopts mathematics, science, and history-social science instructional materials, as provided. The bill would define “AI literacy” for these purposes as the knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with how artificial intelligence works, including its principles, concepts, and applications, as well as how to use artificial intelligence, including its limitations, implications, and ethical considerations. (Based on 04/09/2024 text)
Environmental rights.
Position Request – OPPOSE
Platform Citation – Environmental Regulations ER-1
Analysis – Public and environmental health is already well-regulated in California. This bill has the potential for far-reaching negative consequences that would impair government operations, stunt development for new housing, infrastructure and clean energy project development and has strong potential to destabilize California’s economy.
Bill information
Status: 04/09/2024 – Coauthors revised. From committee: Be adopted, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 8. Noes 3.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Summary: The California Constitution declares various inalienable rights of the people, including the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, acquire, possess, and protect property, and pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy.This measure would amend the California Constitution to declare that the people have a right to clean air and water and a healthy environment. (Based on 01/25/2024 text)
The California Water Plan: long-term supply targets.
Position Request – SUPPORT
Platform Citation – Water W-4
Analysis – A long-term, comprehensive, state-wide water plan is overdue to ensure that vulnerable communities throughout the state are no longer victims to drought cycles exacerbated by poor government planning. The resources of our state are more than enough to provide for the residents, business, and most importantly our agriculture.
Bill information
Status: 04/08/2024 – From committee with author’s amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on W., P., & W.
Summary: Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to update every 5 years the plan for the orderly and coordinated control, protection, conservation, development, and use of the water resources of the state, which is known as “The California Water Plan.” Existing law requires the department to include a discussion of various strategies in the plan update, including, but not limited to, strategies relating to the development of new water storage facilities, water conservation, water recycling, desalination, conjunctive use, water transfers, and alternative pricing policies that may be pursued in order to meet the future needs of the state. Existing law requires the department to establish an advisory committee to assist the department in updating the plan. This bill would revise and recast certain provisions regarding The California Water Plan to, among other things, require the department to instead establish a stakeholder advisory committee and to expand the membership of the committee to include tribes, labor, and environmental justice interests. The bill would require the department to coordinate with the California Water Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, other state and federal agencies as appropriate, and the stakeholder advisory committee to develop a comprehensive plan for addressing the state’s water needs and meeting specified long-term water supply targets established by the bill for purposes of The California Water Plan. The bill would require the plan to provide recommendations and strategies to ensure enough water supply for all designated beneficial uses. The bill would require the plan to include specified components, including a discussion of various strategies that may be pursued in order to meet the water supply targets, a discussion of agricultural water needs, and an analysis of the costs and benefits of achieving the water supply targets. The bill would require the department to submit to the Legislature an annual report between updates to the plan that includes progress made toward meeting the water supply targets once established, as specified. The bill would also require the department to conduct public workshops to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the plan and to post the preliminary draft of the plan on the department’s internet website. (Based on 04/08/2024 text)
Environmental health: product safety: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Position Request – OPPOSE
Platform Citation – Environmental Regulation ER-1
Analysis – Because of the breadth and scope of PFAS use, the regulatory program established is untenable and sets the stage for a ban on critically important products or otherwise make certain products less safe.
Bill information
Status: 04/15/2024 – Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Summary: Existing law, commencing January 1, 2025, prohibits the manufacture, distribution, sale, or offering for sale in the state of any new, not previously used, textile articles that contain regulated perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Existing law, commencing January 1, 2025, prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale in commerce of any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added PFAS. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2032, prohibit a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale a product that contains intentionally added PFAS, as defined, unless the Department of Toxic Substances Control has made a determination that the use of PFAS in the product is a currently unavoidable use, the prohibition is preempted by federal law, or the product is previously used. The bill would specify the criteria and procedures for determining whether the use of PFAS in a product is a currently unavoidable use, for renewing that determination, and for revoking that determination. The bill would require the department to maintain on its internet website a list of each determination of currently unavoidable use, when each determination expires, and the products and uses that are exempt from the prohibition. The bill would impose an administrative penalty for a violation of the prohibition, as specified. The bill would establish the PFAS Penalty Account and require all administrative penalties received to be deposited into that account and, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be used for the administration and enforcement of these provisions, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 04/11/2024 text)
Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act.
Position Request – OPPOSE
Platform Citation – Economic Competitiveness ECT-9
Analysis – This proposal regulates AI technology as opposed to its high-risk applications, creates significant regulatory uncertainty and therefore high compliance costs, and poses significant liability risks to developers for failing to foresee and block any conceivably harmful use of their models by others—all of which inevitably discourages economic and technological innovation.
Bill information
Status: 04/16/2024 – Set for hearing April 23. From committee with author’s amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on G.O.
Summary: Existing law requires the Secretary of Government Operations to develop a coordinated plan to, among other things, investigate the feasibility of, and obstacles to, developing standards and technologies for state departments to determine digital content provenance. For the purpose of informing that coordinated plan, existing law requires the secretary to evaluate, among other things, the impact of the proliferation of deepfakes, defined to mean audio or visual content that has been generated or manipulated by artificial intelligence that would falsely appear to be authentic or truthful and that features depictions of people appearing to say or do things they did not say or do without their consent, on state government, California-based businesses, and residents of the state. Existing law creates the Department of Technology within the Government Operations Agency and requires the department to, among other things, identify, assess, and prioritize high-risk, critical information technology services and systems across state government for modernization, stabilization, or remediation. This bill would enact the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act to, among other things, authorize a developer of a covered model, as defined, to determine whether a covered model qualifies for a limited duty exemption before initiating training of that covered model, as specified. The bill would define “limited duty exemption” to mean a determination, made as specified, with respect to a covered model, that is not a derivative model, that a developer can reasonably exclude the possibility that the covered model has a hazardous capability, as defined, or may come close to possessing a hazardous capability when accounting for a reasonable margin for safety and the possibility of posttraining modifications. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 04/16/2024 text)
State Fire Marshal: fire safety: regulations: lithium-based batteries.
Position Request – SUPPORT
Platform Citation – Environmental Regulation ER-1
Analysis – Broadband providers have complied with PUC requirements by utilizing diesel generators and when permitted, natural gas generators. Advancements in battery technologies would allow broadband providers to use lithium- based batteries to comply and have less impact in the community and right of way.
Bill information
Status: 04/09/2024 – Set for hearing April 23.
Summary: The California Building Standards Law establishes the California Building Standards Commission within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code, which is required to be published once every 3 years. Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal to research and develop, and authorizes the State Fire Marshal to propose to the California Building Standards Commission, mandatory building standards for fire resistance based on occupancy risk categories in very high, high, and moderate California fire severity zones, as provided. This bill would require the State Fire Marshal, before the next triennial edition of the California Building Standards Code adopted after January 1, 2025, to propose to the commission updates to the fire standards relating to requirements for lead-acid and nickel-cadmium battery systems to include identical requirements for lithium-based batteries, as provided. (Based on 04/01/2024 text)
Solid waste: single-use drinking vessels.
Position Request – OPPOSE
Platform Citation – Environmental Regulation ER-1
Analysis – This issue was already sufficiently dealt with under Senate Bill 54 (2022), a law which is currently undergoing active rulemaking. SB 1167’s potential to significantly harm essential businesses within the state, increase adverse environmental impacts, duplicate ongoing work to implement recycling improvements through SB 54, and ultimately create impacts for California consumers including increased costs.
Bill information
Status: 04/04/2024 – From committee with author’s amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on E.Q.
Summary: Existing law prohibits a full-service restaurant, as specified, from providing single-use plastic straws, as defined, to consumers unless requested by the consumer. Existing law requires a city, county, or city and county, to authorize an enforcement agency to enforce these provisions. Existing law specifies that the first and 2nd violations of these provisions would result in a notice of violation and any subsequent violation would be an infraction punishable by a fine of $25 for each day the full-service restaurant is in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300. This bill would require a chain restaurant, before serving a beverage, to ask a customer if the customer intends to consume the beverage on the premises or off the premises. The bill would prohibit a chain restaurant from serving a beverage in a single-use vessel if a customer indicates intent to consume the beverage on the premises, as specified, and would subject a violator to the enforcement provisions described above. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 04/04/2024 text)
Airports: leaded aviation gasoline.
Position Request – OPPOSE
Platform Citation – Environmental Regulation ER-1
Analysis – There is currently no commercially available unleaded fuel to meet demand. SB 1193 requires airports, regardless of their readiness or ability, to accept unleaded fuel by 2026 with the infrastructure they have and with little time to make any essential airport improvements. Rushing an unleaded fuel to the market without considering critical factors including, but not limited to,safety, supply chain compatibility, airport infrastructure, viability, sustained commercial availability, long-term supply, and market forces would be catastrophic to the multi-billion-dollar aviation industry and the jobs it supports.
Bill information
Status: 04/15/2024 – Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Summary: Existing law, the State Aeronautics Act, governs various matters relative to aviation in the state, and authorizes the Department of Transportation to adopt, administer, and enforce rules and regulations for the administration of the act. Under existing law, a violation of the State Aeronautics Act is a crime. This bill would prohibit an airport operator or aviation retail establishment, as defined, from selling, distributing, or otherwise making available leaded aviation gasoline to consumers, consistent with a specified timeline, as provided. The bill would exempt an airport operator or aviation retail establishment from that prohibition if the board of supervisors of the county in which the point of sale occurs has made a final, written determination supported by clear and convincing evidence, after a noticed public hearing, that an unleaded aviation replacement fuel is not commercially available in the county. The bill would authorize an airport operator or aviation retail establishment to make a written request to the board of supervisors of a county to make the above determination, as provided. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 04/11/2024 text)
Employment Training Panel: employment training program: projects and proposals.
Position Request – OPPOSE
Platform Citation – Workforce Development WD-17
Analysis – SB 1321 makes changes to the funding priorities of the Employment Training Panel, those priorities would make a host of businesses ineligible to apply for ETP funds, run an ETP-funded training program, or take part in ETP-funded programming. The core funding of ETP is provided through all employers in the state paying the ETT or Employment Training Tax.
Bill information
Status: 04/16/2024 – April 17 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author. Set for hearing April 24.
Summary: Existing law establishes the Employment Training Panel within the Employment Development Department and sets forth its powers and duties with respect to certain employment training programs. Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature that the purpose of provisions relating to the panel is to establish an employment training program to promote a healthy labor market in a growing, competitive economy and to fund only projects that meet specified criteria, including promoting the retention and expansion of the state’s manufacturing workforce. Existing law requires the panel, in funding projects that meet the above-described criteria, to give funding priority to projects that meet specified goals, including promoting the retention and expansion of the state’s manufacturing workforce. This bill would also include in the above-described project criteria, among other things, assisting existing apprentice, certification, or other training programs in updating training to reflect new technologies or methods, or to address gaps in existing training. The bill would also include in the above-described goals, among other things, meeting the standards established by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards for high-quality training programs. The bill would authorize projects developed pursuant to the above-described provisions to use program funding, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide training through apprenticeship programs approved by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and training at joint-labor management training centers. (Based on 03/20/2024 text)
Employment discrimination: criminal history information.
Position Request – OPPOSE
Platform Citation – Employer-Employee Relations ER-8
Analysis – Significant overstep in government interference in employers’ right to make the hiring decisions they feel benefits their business and opens a wide array of legal liability.
Bill information
Status: 04/16/2024 – Set for hearing April 24 in L., P.E. & R. pending receipt.
Summary: Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits various forms of employment discrimination and empowers the Civil Rights Department to investigate and prosecute complaints alleging unlawful practices. Existing law makes it unlawful for an employer with five or more employees to, among other things, include on any application for employment, before the employer makes a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, any question that seeks the disclosure of an applicant’s conviction history, except as provided. This bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to take an adverse action against an applicant based solely or in part on criminal history information, unless the employer can demonstrate that the applicant’s criminal history has a direct and adverse relationship with one or more specific duties of the job and the employer’s business necessity requires the adverse action. The bill would also make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to require, as a condition of employment, that an applicant waive the applicant’s right to privacy in criminal history information or otherwise provide an authorization for the employer to obtain the applicant’s criminal history information under specified law, unless the employer can demonstrate a business necessity. The bill would require an employer to provide to an applicant a written notice when requesting an applicant’s authorization to obtain the applicant’s criminal history information, as specified. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. (Based on 03/20/2024 text)
Digital discrimination of access: prohibition.
Position Request – OPPOSE
Platform Citation – Economic Development ED-10
Analysis – The broad definitions of this bill combined with poorly defined enforcement guidance make it extremely dangerous and opens service providers to a wide-range of litigation.
Bill information
Status: 04/16/2024 – Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
Summary: Existing law prohibits fixed and mobile internet service providers, as defined, that provide broadband internet access service, as defined, from engaging in specified actions concerning the treatment of internet traffic. This bill would define “digital discrimination of access” as policies or practices, not justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility, that differentially impact consumers’ access to broadband internet access service based on their income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin, or that are intended to have a differential impact. The bill would prohibit internet service providers, as defined, from engaging in digital discrimination of access. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 04/15/2024 text)