It’s that time of year again when Sacramento lawmakers are debating a wide variety of measures that could impact your workplace. Aug. 31 is the last day for legislators to pass bills, and Gov. Schwarzenegger must sign or veto them by Sept. 30. Here’s a look at some key proposals now on deck in the state Capitol.
Bias and Harassment
A.B. 1825 would require employers with 50 or more employees to provide supervisors with at least two hours of interactive training on sexual harassment. The training requirements would also apply to supervisors employed by state agencies.
A.B. 1229 would expand the potential liability employers face when an employee is granted an employment benefit in exchange for submitting to sexual advances or requests. The measure, which would overturn California judicial precedent, would permit other employees who were qualified for but denied the benefit to sue for sex discrimination.
A.B. 2317 would boost damages for an employee who was paid unequal wages because of gender bias.
Cal-WARN
S.B. 1453 would modify the existing Cal-WARN law to require employers who are conducting a mass layoff, relocation, or termination to provide 60 days’ notice to the Employment Development Department of the number of employees laid off, relocated, or terminated because work was outsourced outside the United States.
Join us this fall in San Francisco for the California Employment Law Update conference, a 3-day event that will teach you everything you need to know about new laws and regulations, and your compliance obligations, for the year ahead—it’s one-stop shopping at its best.
Jury Duty
A.B. 1397 would expand protections for employees who serve on juries by prohibiting employers from taking adverse action against employees or requiring them to use their paid time off, vacation, or personal leave for time spent on jury duty.
Privacy
S.B. 1841 would make the intentional electronic monitoring of employees without prior written or electronic notice a misdemeanor. Prior notice wouldn’t be required if the employer has reasonable grounds to believe the monitored employee is engaged in unlawful conduct.
Safety
A.B. 3037 would require—rather than merely allow—high-hazard industries to include an employer-employee committee or liaison to work in conjunction with the employer’s injury and illness prevention program (IIPP).
A.B. 1923 would amend existing rules requiring employers to correct unsafe and unhealthy conditions in a timely manner. Under this bill, “unhealthy conditions” would include exposure to a “critical incident,” meaning one involving mass human casualties, maiming, or dismemberment, a fatality involving a child, or a fatality or injury involving a co-worker. This bill also would require employers of emergency response personnel to develop and implement a critical incident stress program as part of their existing IIPP.
A.B. 2545 would require that workplace exits be readily accessible to employees at all times and be free of obstructions or impediments so that employees have full use of exits in a fire or other emergency.
Wage and Hour
A.B. 2832 would increase the minimum wage by $1 over the next two years to $7.75.
S.B. 1538 would require employers to pay piece rate workers for rest and meal periods or pay a penalty equal to one hour of wages for each rest or meal period not provided to such employees.
S.B. 1499 would bar employers from charging employees fees to cash their payroll checks, transport them to a job site, or rent the tools necessary to perform their job duties.
S.B. 1618 would affect information contained in itemized wage statements. Employers could only include an employee’s name and the last four digits of the employee’s Social Security number on the wage statement. State agencies could only use an employee’s identification number or the last four digits of a Social Security number on checks.
S.B. 1809 would limit the scope of the so-called Bounty Hunter law passed last year, which gave employees expanded rights to sue to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations. Courts could limit the amount of civil penalties recovered. And, only the Labor and Workforce Development Agency could recover penalties for violations involving an employer’s failure to comply with Labor Code posting or notice requirements.