SB 1162: The Pay Transparency for Pay Equity Act. This bill requires a private employer that has 100 or more employees to submit a pay data report to the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency (“Department”). The law revises the timeframe in which a private employer is required to submit this information, requiring that it be provided on or before the second Wednesday of May 2023, and for each year thereafter on or before the second Wednesday of May. This bill would also require a private employer that has 100 or more employees hired through labor contractors, as defined, to submit a separate pay data report to the Department for those employees in accordance with the above timeframe. Prior law required employers with multiple establishments to submit a report for each establishment and a consolidated report that included all employees. This law deletes the provision requiring employers with multiple establishments to submit a consolidated report.
The new law requires the pay data reports to include the median and mean hourly rate for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex within each job category. The law deletes the provision authorizing an employer to submit an EEO-1 in lieu of a pay data report. The law permits a court to impose a civil penalty, not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per employee, upon any employer who fails to file the required report and a penalty, not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200) per employee, upon any employer for a subsequent violation. The penalties are deposited in the Civil Rights Enforcement and Litigation Fund.
Also, the new law requires an employer, upon employee request, to provide a pay scale for the position in which an employee is currently employed. Additionally, an employer with 15 or more employees is required to include the pay scale in any job posting and to maintain records of a job title and wage rate history for each employee within a specific timeframe. Employers who have 15 or more employees and who engage a third-party to announce, post, publish, or otherwise make a job posting must provide pay scale to the third-party to include in the job posting. If an employer fails to keep record, a rebuttable presumption in favor of the employee’s claim is established.
AB 125: COVID19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave. California has extended COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (SPSL) through December 31, 2022. On September 29, 2022, California’s Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 152 which amends the existing SPSL law and provides for state grants to certain employers. The previous version of SPSL was passed in February 2022 and required employers with 26 or more employees to provide additional paid leave for certain COVID-19-related reasons. This law was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2022.
Under existing law, full-time employees receive one bank of up to 40 hours of leave that can be used for a variety of qualifying reasons. A full-time employee can receive an additional bank of 40 hours of leave if they test positive for COVID or are caring for a covered family member who tests positive, and they produce proof of that positive test result. Part-time employees receive pro-rated banks based on formulas specified in the law. Existing law also allows an employer to require submission to a diagnostic test on or after the fifth day an employee reports testing positive for COVID-19.
AB 152 amends the existing SPSL law to permit additional testing if an employee continues to test positive after taking any test required on or after the fifth day. Under the amended law, an employer can require that the employee submit to a second diagnostic test that is taken at least 24 hours after any positive result. The amended law also provides that an employer has no obligation to provide additional paid leave if an employee refuses to comply with the employer’s required return to work diagnostic tests.
AB 152 extends the availability of SPSL to December 31, 2022. While SPSL will now be available through the end of the year, AB 152 does not provide an additional bank of time to those employees who may have already exhausted their allotted SPSL for the year.
AB 2188: Discrimination In Employment: Use Of Cannabis. This bill makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment, or penalty, if the discrimination is based upon the person’s use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace. Existing law under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act protects and safeguards certain rights and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination, except as for preemployment drug screening, as specified, or upon an employer-required drug screening test that has found a person to have nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites in their hair, blood, urine, or other bodily fluids.
This bill would specify that the bill does not preempt state or federal laws requiring applicants to or employees to be tested for controlled substances as condition for employment, receiving federal funding or federal licensing-related benefits, or entering a federal contract.
AB 1041: Employment Leave. This bill expands the class of people for whom an employee may take protected leave. Under the existing California Family Rights Act it is an unlawful employment practice for a California public employer or an employer with 5 or more employees to refuse to grant a request from an employee who meets specified requirements to take up to a total of 12 workweeks in any 12-month period for family care and medical leave. This bill now includes within the family care protection a person designated by the employee. This bill would define “designated person” to mean any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. The bill would authorize an employer to limit an employee to one designated person per 12-month period.
Additionally, the definition of the term “family member” under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, would expand to include a person identified by the employee at the time the employee requests paid sick days. Existing law generally entitles an employee who works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year to paid sick days, including use of paid sick days for diagnosis, care, or treatment, etc. of an employee or an employee’s family member.
SB 1044: Employment Emergency Condition Retaliation. This bill would prohibit an employer, in the event of emergency condition, as defined, from taking or threatening adverse action against any employee for refusing to report to, or leaving, a workplace or worksite within the affected area because the employee has a reasonable belief that the workplace or worksite is unsafe. Existing law within the Department of Industrial Relations the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, prescribes requirements related to standards for working conditions for protection of employees applicable to an employment relationship. This bill would also prohibit an employer from allowing an employee to access the employee’s mobile device or other communications for seeking emergency assistance, assessing the safety of the situation, or communicating with a person to confirm their safety. Where specified, the bill also requires an employee to notify the employer of the emergency condition. Clarification regarding the provisions is not intended to apply when the emergency conditions, which pose an imminent and ongoing risk of harm to the workplace, the worksite, the worker, or the worker’s home, have ceased.