Senate Bill 403: “Caste” as a protected category
Generally, California law prohibits businesses and employers from discriminating against individuals based on protected categories. Relying on reports that “caste-based discrimination in the state suggest that employers and other entities are not adequately protecting against this form of discrimination,” SB 403 was drafted with the goal of providing “additional clarity to businesses … about what forms of discrimination are prohibited.”

Accordingly, SB 403 seeks to amend the Unruh Civil Act, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by adding “caste” to the list of protected categories. The bill also defines “ancestry” (which was already a protected category under FEHA, just not elucidated.)

Per SB 403, “ancestry” would include, but not limited to, lineal descent, heritage, parentage, caste, or any inherited social status, and “Caste” means an individual’s perceived position in a system of social stratification based on inherited status. That may include, but is not limited to, inability or restricted ability to alter inherited status; socially enforced restrictions on marriage, private and public segregation, and discrimination; and social exclusion on the basis of perceived status.

Assembly Bill 524: “Family caregiver status” as a protected category
AB 524 also seeks to amend FEHA by adding “family caregiver status” to the list of protected categories in California. Bill supporters claim AB 524 would prohibit employers from treating a worker adversely based on assumptions or stereotypes associated with their family caregiving.

AB 524 defines “family caregiver status” as a person who provides direct care to a spouse, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, domestic partner, or, with respect to an existing employee, any individual previously identified by the employee as a “designated person.”

Senate Bill 848: Protected time off due to reproductive loss
SB 848 aims to create a protected leave of absence of up to five days for employees who suffered a “reproductive loss event. ” The event could include the day, multiple days, or the final day of “a failed adoption, failed surrogacy, miscarriage, stillbirth, or an unsuccessful assisted reproduction”. If an employee experiences more than one reproductive loss event within a 12-month period, the total leave amount may be capped at 20 days within a 12-month period. Unlike other health-related leave laws in California, SB 848 would not require a healthcare provider’s certification.

Generally, reproductive loss leave would need to be completed within three months of the event and would not have to be taken on consecutive days. Furthermore, SB 848 provides that reproductive loss leave would not run concurrently with other applicable leaves.

An employer would not be required to provide paid reproductive loss leave, but an employee would be entitled to use vacation, personal leave, accrued and available sick leave, or compensatory time off that is otherwise available to the employee.

If signed by the Governor, the leave would apply to employees who work for employers with five or more employees.

Senate Bill 616: Increasing entitlement for paid sick leave
California employees are entitled to accrue paid sick leave at the rate of one hour per every 30 hours worked. Currently, employers can cap use of paid sick leave at 24 hours or three days per year, and accrual at 48 hours or six days.

SB 616 could increase the caps on use and accrual so that the new cap on use would be 40 hours or five days per year. The new cap on accrual would be 80 hours or 10 days. If employers utilize a different accrual method, the accrual must be at a rate that employees accrue no less than 40 hours or five days of paid sick leave by the 200th calendar day in each year.

Assembly Bill 1356: Increasing notice period under Cal-WARN
Generally, when an employer of a certain size (at least 100 employees under federal law, and at least 75 under California law) opts for mass layoffs, relocations, or closures, it must provide a 60-day notice before taking any action.

Responding to mass layoffs and the growing use of staffing agencies in tech companies, the Legislature passed AB 1356, which seeks, in part, to include a “client employer” in the definition of “employer” for purposes of compliance with the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. This, per the author, would close “the loopholes in critical layoff protection laws and [give] contract workers the basic protections that all workers at these large companies deserve.”

AB 1356 further seeks to increase the notice period, from 60 to 75 days, which, per the author, would help “increase the economic safety net for some of our most vulnerable communities.”

Senate Bill 497: Creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation
California law protects employees who engage in protected activity, including lodging complaints to governmental agencies concerning the terms and conditions of their employment.

SB 497 aims to expand these protections, and provides that any action taken against an employee within 90 days of the protected activity would create “a rebuttable presumption in favor of the employee’s claim.”

Senate Bill 731: Requires advance written notice prior to ending a remote work arrangement
SB 731 seeks to require employers to provide at least 30 days’ advance notice before ending their remote work policy.

The notice must be in writing, sent via mail or email, and must include, at a minimum, the following text:
“You have the right to ask your employer to allow you to continue working remotely as an accommodation if you have a disability. Your employer is required to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process to determine if there are effective reasonable accommodations for your disability, including working remotely. If you are able to perform all of your essential job functions while working remotely, your employer must grant your request unless it would create an undue hardship for your employer, an alternative reasonable accommodation is available, or you do not meet the definition of disability under the law. You can learn more about your rights at https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/accommodation/.”

Per the author, SB 731 would provide employees with disabilities sufficient time to a submit a request for continued remote work as a reasonable accommodation.

Senate Bill 525: Higher minimum wage for health care workers
SB 525 could gradually increase the minimum wage for covered health care employees, up to $25 per hour. The timing of a wage increase varies based on the type of establishment covered employees work for.

Assembly Bill 1228: Higher minimum wage for fast food workers
AB 1228 is a compromise between labor groups and restaurant associations concerning fast food establishments. The bill seeks to increase the minimum wage for fast food restaurant employees to $20 per hour, starting April 1, 2024. The bill would also revive the Fast-Food Council (originally established in AB 257, which was halted due to a referendum measure) for the purpose of establishing minimum standards on wages, working hours, and other working conditions for fast food restaurant employees. AB 1228 would not empower the Council to develop rules creating new paid time off benefits to fast food restaurant employees, and would not permit cities or counties to create local ordinances or regulations applicable to fast food restaurant employees. Local jurisdictions, however, may still establish a minimum wage that is generally applicable to all industries.

Senate Bill 627: Required notice and hiring preferences for employees working at “chains”
SB 627 would require a “chain employer” to provide a 60-day notice to covered workers before closure of a chain establishment. “Chain” is defined as “a business in this state that consists of 100 or more establishments nationally that share a common brand and are owned and operated by the same parent company.” SB 627 would further require a chain employer, for a period of one year after closure of a covered establishment, to provide qualified covered workers an opportunity to transfer to a location of the chain within 25 miles of the closed establishment, as positions become available.

A chain employer must maintain a “preferential list of covered workers” with date of hire and position, and must make offers of transfers in order of “greatest length of service.” When a position becomes available, a chain employer must make a written offer within five business days, of all available positions for which covered workers are qualified.

Violations of SB 627 may result in payment of back wages for each day the violation continues, as well as civil penalties and liquidated damages.

Senate Bill 699: Governor approves bill to invalidate out-of-state non-compete agreements
California law, Business and Professions Code Section 16600, provides that every contract that restrains anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is, to that extent, void, except under limited statutory exceptions (e.g., when a person sells the goodwill of a business or ownership interest).

SB 699 was already signed by Governor Newsom on September 1, 2023. The bill expands this prohibition to any non-compete provisions regardless of where and when the contract was signed. Per the declared purpose of the bill, this is to protect “the freedom of movement of persons whom California-based employers wish to employ to provide services in California, regardless of the person’s state of residence.”

As further deterrence against non-compete restrictions, SB 699 provides that current, former, or prospective employees have:

• A private right of action for injunctive relief, and/or
• Recovery of actual damages, and a
• Right to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if the employee prevails.

AUTHOR

Tal Burnovski Yeyni is an attorney at Lewitt Hackman. She defends employers in wage and hour, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and other employee claims.