Email notifications are now in beta! Learn more and sign up today!
Open States depends upon donations to keep our servers running. If you find Open States useful please consider becoming a patron or making a one-time donation today.

Open States' stated mission is to improve civic engagement.

To be true to that goal, we can not stand by and be silent when a large portion of Americans face systemic racism and other forms of oppression. That oppression has meant being excluded from civic participation at the ballot box, being called un-American for peaceful protests, and being denied justice for crimes committed against them.

Please consider giving to local causes that support racial justice in your area.

#BlackLivesMatter

AB 3216

  • California Assembly Bill
  • 2019-2020 Regular Session
  • Introduced in Assembly Feb 21, 2020
  • Assembly
  • Senate
  • Governor

Employee leave: authorization.

Abstract

(1) Existing law, the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, or California Family Rights Act (CFRA) , makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, as defined, to refuse to grant a request by an eligible employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period for family care and medical leave, as specified. Existing law makes this leave available to an employee with more than 12 months of service with the employer and at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer within the last 12 months. Existing law also specifies that it is not an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to grant a request for family care and medical leave by an employee if the employee employs fewer than 50 employees within 75 miles of the worksite where that employee is employed. Existing law, the New Parent Leave Act, makes it an unlawful employment practice for any employer to refuse to grant a request by an employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period to bond with a new child. The act applies to an employee who has more than 12 months of service with the employer, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, and who works at a worksite in which the employer employs at least 20 employees within 75 miles. This bill would revise and recast these provisions to make it an unlawful employment practice for any employer to refuse grant a request by an employee, with qualified employment service, to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period for family care and medical leave, including birth of the employee's child or adoption, to care for the employee's own medical condition, or for a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner, as specified. The bill would also make it an unlawful business practice for an employer to refuse to grant an employee up to 12 workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for emergency leave, as defined. The bill would also delete the exception specifying that it is not an unlawful employment practice for an employee to refuse to grant a request for family care and medical leave by an employee if the employer employs less than 50 employees within 75 miles of the worksite where the employee is employed. The bill would also make it an unlawful employment practice for any employer to refuse to grant a request by an employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period due to a qualifying exigency related to the covered active duty or call to covered active duty of an employee's spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent in the Armed Forces of the United States. The bill would further make it an unlawful employment practice for any employer to refuse to grant leave to care for a child or a parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner for whom the employee is responsible for providing care if the family member school or place of care has been closed, or the care provider of the family member is unavailable, due to a state of emergency, as defined. The bill would revise various definitions and would make related and conforming changes to these provisions. (2) Existing law prohibits an employer from refusing to allow a female employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take a leave for a reasonable time of up to 4 months before returning to work. Existing law also prohibits an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes that leave, as specified. This bill would specify that these provisions apply to employers with one or more employees. (3) Existing law, the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, entitles an employee who works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment to paid sick days. Under existing law, an employee accrues paid sick days at a rate of not less than 1 hour per every 30 hours worked, subject to certain use, accrual, and yearly carryover limitations. Existing law authorizes an employer to use a different accrual method from that described above, provided that the accrual is on a regular basis so that the employee has no less than 24 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 120th calendar day of employment or each calendar year or in each 12-month period. Under existing law, an employer is not required to provide additional paid sick leave if the employer has a paid leave policy or paid time off policy and makes available an amount of leave to employees under the same conditions and the policy satisfies the accrual, carryover, and use requirements described above. The bill would also provide for paid emergency leave, as defined, if a state of emergency is declared by the Governor pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act. The bill would require an employer in these cases to provide each employee with at least 80 hours or 10 days of paid sick leave, or for part time workers an amount that is equivalent to the amount of time they regularly work or are scheduled to work within a 10 day period, regardless of hours worked or tenure with the employer, to use for any purpose relating to a state of emergency, as provided. The bill would require this paid sick leave to be made available immediately, in accordance with certain procedures. The bill would also entitle a provider of in-home supportive services to paid sick days under these circumstances. Existing law, the Healthy Workplaces, Health Families Act of 2014, requires an employer to provide paid sick leave, upon the oral or written request of an employee, for specified purposes, including the care or treatment of an existing health condition of an employee or the employee's family member. This bill would also require sick leave to be paid for an employee who is subject to a federal, state, or local public health order related to a public health emergency, to care for a family member subject to an order, including if the child or family member's school or place of care has been closed, and in specified other circumstances related to a state of emergency. Existing law governs employment relations, defines the contract of employment, and establishes the obligations of employers to their employees. This bill would require an employer, as defined, to offer its laid-off employees specified information about job positions that become available for which the laid-off employees are qualified, and to offer positions to those laid-off employees based on a preference system, in accordance with specified timelines and procedures. The bill would authorize an employee to enforce violations of these provisions by filing an action with the Division of Labor Standards or bringing a civil action, as specified, and would authorize various remedies, including hiring and reinstatement rights and awarding of back pay. Existing law defines an "employee" for purposes of the act as not including, among others, an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement meeting specified conditions. Existing law also excludes from the definition of "employee" an employee in the construction industry covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement meeting specified conditions, an individual employed by an air carrier as a flight deck or cabin crew member subject to certain federal labor provisions, and an employee of the state, city, county, city, and county, district, or any other public entity who is a recipient of a retirement allowance and employed without reinstatement into the employee's retirement system, as specified. This bill would revise the above definition of "employee" to provide that, except for paid sick leave related to a state of emergency, as specified, an "employee" does not include the above-described persons. (4) Existing law requires unemployment compensation disability benefits to be paid to individuals who are eligible to receive those benefits and requires the Director of Employment Development to oversee the administration of disability benefits. Existing law requires a claimant to establish medical eligibility for each uninterrupted period of disability by filing a claim for disability benefits supported by a certificate of a treating physician or practitioner that establishes the condition and meets other specified requirements. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding the above requirements, in the case of a state of emergency, a medical examination is not required, and in lieu thereof, the director may accept the self-certification or attestation of the claimant certifying the disability is related to the state of emergency or is not feasible due to the state of emergency or serious health condition of the family member that warrants the individual's care, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Under existing law, workers are required to pay contributions to the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund, a special fund in the State Treasury, and those funds are continuously appropriated for the purpose of providing disability benefits and making payment of administrative expenses. By authorizing the expenditure of these funds for a new purpose, the self-certification or attestation of a disability claim under the circumstances described above, the bill would make an appropriation. Existing law establishes, within the state disability insurance program, a family temporary disability insurance program, also known as the paid family leave program, which provides up to 6 weeks of wage replacement benefits to workers who take time off work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, various other family members, to bond with a minor child, or to participate in a qualifying exigency related to active duty, as specified. Existing law makes an individual ineligible for family temporary disability insurance benefits with respect to any day that the individual has, among other things, had another family member, as defined, ready, willing, and able and available for the same period of time in a day that the individual is providing the required care. Existing law also authorizes an employer, as a condition of an employee's initial receipt of family temporary disability insurance benefits during a 12-month period in which an employee is eligible for these benefits, to require the employee to take up to 2 weeks of earned but unused vacation leave before the employee's initial receipt of these benefits. This bill would delete the above provisions. By removing restrictions on the use of the funds within the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund and thereby allowing those funds to be used for new purposes, the bill would make an appropriation. 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.

Bill Sponsors (4)

Ash Kalra

  • Democratic
  • lower
  • 27
Author

Lorena Gonzalez

  • Democratic
  • lower
  • 80
Author

Rob Bonta

  • Democratic
  • lower
  • 18
Principal Coauthor

Maria Elena Durazo

  • Democratic
  • upper
  • 24
Principal Coauthor

Votes


Actions


Jun 03, 2020

Assembly

From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.) (June 3).

Jun 02, 2020

Assembly

In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  • Referral-Committee
APPR. suspense file. APPR

May 21, 2020

Assembly

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (May 20). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  • Committee-Passage
  • Referral-Committee
  • Committee-Passage-Favorable
Com. on APPR.

Assembly

Coauthors revised.

May 13, 2020

Assembly

Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  • Referral-Committee
Com. on L. & E.

May 12, 2020

Assembly

From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. Read second time and amended.

Mar 17, 2020

Assembly

In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

Mar 16, 2020

Assembly

Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  • Referral-Committee
Com. on L. & E.

Mar 12, 2020

Assembly

From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. Read second time and amended.

Assembly

Referred to Com. on L. & E.

  • Referral-Committee
Com. on L. & E.

Feb 24, 2020

Assembly

Read first time.

Feb 22, 2020

Assembly

From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.

Feb 21, 2020

Assembly

Introduced. To print.

Bill Text

Bill Text Versions Format
AB3216 HTML
02/21/20 - Introduced PDF
03/12/20 - Amended Assembly PDF
05/12/20 - Amended Assembly PDF

Related Documents

Document Format
No related documents.

Sources

Data on Open States is updated nightly from the official website of the California State Legislature.

If you notice any inconsistencies with these official sources, feel free to file an issue.