When it comes to Employment law, California is often the originator of new workplace initiatives which then spread across the rest of the country, most within just a couple of years or so. So if California is where the movements begin, Sacramento is the epicenter of that activity. And this year’s legislative session in Sacramento is an active one.
This year the political landscape here in our Golden State is on unsteady ground. It’s the first time since 2003 that the Democrats control both legislative chambers and we have a democratic Governor (which means laws and measures can be passed through without Republican support). So, if Gov. Brown does veto a bill, with majority in both houses, it could be overturned. However, the Republicans clearly control Washington and the White House and this will most likely lead to tension and conflict as the Trump administration draws its line in the sand regarding areas on health care, salary levels and immigration proposals.
So what do HR leaders in California need to prepare for? There are 4 main employment bills that are working their way through Sacramento that Human Resource professionals will want to watch carefully in the coming months. Here they are:
1. Ban the Box Law
This type of law is spreading to several States this year, and many more localities. In a nutshell, “Ban-the-box” laws prevent employers from asking job applicants criminal background questions until a certain point in the candidate selection process. California already prevents state government agencies and municipalities from inquiring about or using criminal conviction information during the hiring process except in a few narrowly specified instances.
But this newly proposed bill, A.B. 1008, would expand the restrictions making it unlawful to ask about a candidate’s criminal record until after an offer for employment is made. This offer could still be contingent on passing a criminal background screen, after the offer was presented. The way this proposed bill currently stands, it would also require employers to provide candidates with new notice and disclosure requirements.
2. Parental Leave
Parental leave in CA now applies only to companies with over 50 eligible employees working within a 75 mile radius. These companies are now mandated to provide eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of parental leave within the first year after the birth or adoption of a child.
The new bill, S.B. 63, called the New Parent Leave Act, would require employers with 20-49 employees to also offer this unpaid, job-protected baby-bonding leave to new parents.
Brown has vetoed similar bills in the past, but as we mentioned above, the Democrats with such a strong majority in both houses could override his veto this time around.
3. Opportunity to Work
As you are probably aware, in February, San Jose passed its Opportunity to Work Ordinance. This is one of three CA city ordinances of this type which are aimed to create more full-time jobs, and less part-time jobs in these communities. A.B. 5 is based on San Jose’s Opportunity to Work Act gives current part-time employees the right to work more hours in certain situations before an employer can hire additional workers. In essence, before an employer can hire another part-time employee, it must offer the additional hours to a current part-time employee first in certain situations. A.B. 5 would make a like initiative a state-wide ordinance which most likely will be put on hold this round. But, that said, it just passed through the Labor and Employment Committee on April 19th, so best to watch this one. It would create a huge administrative burden clocking hours, etc., for HR going forward if it passes.
4. Immigration Enforcement
Just in case HR doesn’t feel like it’s often shoved between a rock and a hard place, here comes A.B. 450. This proposed legislation is in direct response to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement activities and sets up a situation where there will be conflicting demands between potential state and federal laws.
A.B. 450 would prohibit employers from providing federal agents access to the worksite or to employment records—such as I-9 forms, except where federal law specifically requires, and unless the federal government has a valid warrant or subpoena. So if HR is presented with a “notice of inspection” from federal immigration, they would not be allowed to grant them access without triggering a potential penalty. And that penalty, as proposed in this legislation, is set to be between $10,000 and $25,000 per violation. And, if that’s not enough, there is also a proposed list of new notice requirements that would fall on HR to comply with as well.
Don’t panic yet. This bill will need some tweaking to meet reality light of day, as it’s not practical to have HR or other managers make an informed decision on whether to deny federal agents access to the worksite inspections without a subpoena, or permit access and pay huge fines under this proposed CA law.
It’s not easy working in HR in California, but being prepared is one of the best ways to handle the constant changes. Although these proposed bills may not pass into law this year, they may end up popping up and morphing over the next year or two and becoming law in an altered version. Remember, you can follow these and other legislation on the ca.gov website.
Eileen has practiced HR for over 30 years and has served in both large companies and boutique companies, including Disney, Hasbro, and Umpqua Bank. She currently serves on the board of directors for the EDD/EAC as well as the NCHRA. A Bay Area native, Eileen enjoys visiting Lake Tahoe, reading, and spending time with her family.