California’s governor vetoed a bill September 30 that would have granted 6 weeks of “parental leave” to some employees in the state. Governor Jerry Brown (D) said in a letter to lawmakers that he was particularly concerned about the impact the law would have on small businesses.
 |
The bill would have given covered employees 6 weeks of job-protected leave to bond with a new child within 1 year of the child’s birth, adoption, or foster care placement. It would have had similar eligibility criteria to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which is 1,250 hours of service within the previous 12 months. It would have applied, however, to employers that employ 20 individuals within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite, instead of FMLA’s 50-employee threshold.
Advocates say the law was intended to cover employees who don’t otherwise have access to such leave. “Due to an inequity in current law, employees who work for companies with 49 or fewer employees pay into the state’s Paid Family Leave Program but lack job-protection given to employees who work for companies of 50 or more,” said the bill’s primary sponsor, Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D), in a press release. “SB 654 would have ensured that employees who work for companies with between 20 and 49 employees do not risk being fired for taking 6 weeks of bonding time to care for a newborn or newly adopted child.”
The leave would not have to be paid, but employers could not prohibit employees from using accrued paid time off. Employers also would have to continue paying for an employee’s health insurance as usual.
Considering other leave available to California employees, both the National Law Review and the Society for Human Resource Management estimated that some employees could conceivably be entitled to more than 5 months of parental leave if the bill was signed into law.
“It goes without saying that allowing new parents to bond with a child is very important and the state has a number of paid and unpaid benefit programs to provide for that leave,” Brown said in a letter to lawmakers explaining his veto. “I am concerned, however, about the impact of this leave particularly on small businesses and the potential liability that could result.”
Jackson said she was disappointed by the veto and would continue to advance the issue in the future.