(1)Existing law authorizes a person who believes he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement within 6 months after the occurrence of the violation.

This bill would extend the period to file a complaint to within 3 years after the occurrence of the violation.

(2)Existing law prohibits an employer, as defined, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, as defined, from, among other things, preventing an employee from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a law, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employees job duties.

This bill would authorize a court to award reasonable attorneys fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for a violation of these provisions.

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2946

Author:(Kalra)

As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2018

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Extends the statute of limitations for complaints alleging workplace retaliation from six months to three years and authorizes the payment of attorney's fees to employees who successfully sue for retaliation based on whistleblowing. Specifically, this bill:

1. Extends the filing period with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) to three years for complaints based on a person's belief that he or she has been discharged or discriminated against by an employer in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner (LC).
2. Authorizes a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for a violation of his or her right to disclose information that plaintiff has reasonable cause to believe concerns a violation by the employer of, among other things, a state or federal statute.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes a person who believes he or she has been discharged or discriminated against in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the LC to file a complaint with the DLSE within six months after the occurrence of the violation.
2. Prohibits an employer, or person acting on behalf of the employer, to make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency or other specified persons, or participating in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses, among other things, a violation of state or federal statute.
3. Prohibits an employer, or person acting on behalf of the employer, from retaliating against an employee who discloses, or the employer thinks will disclose, information to a government or law enforcement agency or other specified persons, or participating in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses, among other things, a violation of state or federal statute.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, one-time special fund costs in the range of $928,000 to $2.7 million and ongoing costs in the range of $882,000 to $2.6 million each year. Retaliation claims have increased roughly 10% each year from previous expansions of retaliation protections, and these cost estimates assume an increase in claims between 10% and 30% compared to current law. 

COMMENTS: Labor Code Section 98.7 protects an employee from workplace retaliation for filing a complaint under certain provisions of the Labor Code. Protected complaints include those alleging health and safety, equal pay, or sick leave violations. In addition, under Labor Code Section 1102.5, retaliation is prohibited when an employee "whistleblows" on an employer because he or she believes the employer has violated the law.

According to the author, complaints of workplace retaliation are on the rise. A 2016 Retaliation Complaint Report from the LC cites a 70% increase from 2012 to 2016 in the number of cases of retaliation due to workers asserting their rights under the labor code. This means that over 1,000 more cases were filed in 2016 than in 2012.

Arguments in Support

In support of this bill, the National Employment Law Project argues that extending the filing period for workers who allege retaliation for asserting their rights under the labor code is critical for "ensuring vulnerable workers know their rights, can take action to prevent the chilling effect retaliation has across the worksite, and to level the playing field for law-abiding employers who are forced to compete with illegal retaliation practices."

Worksafe also supports extending the six month filing period, asserting that "workers are often misled because the deadline to file a wage theft claim through the LC is three years; workers often assume that it is the same for a retaliation claim."

Also in support of this bill, Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN) states that the existing monetary remedies for an employee whistleblower are inadequate as the payment of attorney's fees "can be a burden to plaintiffs who are wronged or even a deterrent to filing altogether."

Arguments in Opposition

In opposition, a coalition of employer organizations including the California Chamber of Commerce, argues that this bill "undermines the essence of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) complaint process by requiring a one-sided attorney's fee provision that will incentivize further litigation." In addition, the opposition notes that "the DLSE does not have exclusive jurisdiction over retaliation complaints. An employee has the option of filing a claim with the Labor Commissioner or in civil court. Thus, the DLSE provides an alternative to civil litigation."

Analysis Prepared by: Megan Lane / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0003125

Date of Hearing: May 16, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2946

Author:(Kalra) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2018

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill increases the time, from six months to three years, for an employee to file a retaliation claim with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) and provides that a prevailing plaintiff in a whistleblower action is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees.

FISCAL EFFECT:

One-time special fund costs in the range of $928,000 to $2.7 million and ongoing costs in the range of $882,000 to $2.6 million each year. Retaliation claims have increased roughly 10% each year from previous expansions of retaliation protections, and these cost estimates assume an increase in claims between 10% and 30% compared to current law.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Under current law, employees who believe that they were fired or suffered some adverse action in violation of any provision of the Labor Code may file a complaint within six months after the occurrence of the violation. Once the complaint is filed, DLSE investigates and if a violation is found, DLSE orders the employer to remedy the violation. Remedies include reinstatement, payment of back wages or lost benefits, or any other remedy appropriate to the violation. If an employer fails to comply with the order, DLSE may bring an action in court to enforce its order or seek injunctive relief.
2. Purpose. According to supporters, AB 2946 will help ensure workers can take action against employers who engage in illegal retaliation practices. The author notes that the statute of limitations means that many cases of workplace retaliation go unreported, and vulnerable worker who have limited access to resources and legal representation would benefit from having more time.
3. Recent legislation. SB 306 (Hertzberg), Chapter 460, Statutes of 2017, authorized DLSE to seek an immediate and temporary injunction when workers face retaliation for asserting their rights under the law and gave DLSE authority to issue citations and penalties directly to enforce retaliation claims, rather than exclusively through the courts. It also authorized an employee who is bringing a civil action for a retaliation claim to seek injunctive relief from the court.

Analysis Prepared by: Luke Reidenbach / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2946

Author:(Kalra) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2018

SUBJECT: Division of Labor Standards Enforcement: complaint

KEY ISSUES:

1. Should the time for an employee to file a retaliation claim with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement be increased from six months to three years?
2. Should a plaintiff who prevails in a "whistleblower" retaliation action be awarded attorney's fees by the court?

SYNOPSIS

Existing law prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for exercising certain rights, including the right to report employer violations of the Labor Code or other laws. Retaliation can take the form of discharge, demotion, reassignment, or any other adverse, job-related action. Existing law authorizes an employee who has suffered retaliation to file a complaint with the Labor Commission's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement within six months of the occurrence of the violation. Existing law additionally, under a "whistleblower" statute, prohibits an employer from firing or otherwise retaliating against an employee for disclosing information about a violation of the law to a government or law enforcement agency, or to a supervisor or any other person with the authority to investigate the violation. This bill makes two simple, yet significant, changes to these laws. First, this bill would extend the time for filing a retaliation complaint to three years from the date that violation occurred. It would also specify that a plaintiff who prevails in a whistleblower claim in court is entitled to attorney's fees. The author believes that this measure will give vulnerable workers more time to gather necessary evidence and materials and provide greater access to legal representation. The bill is supported by several labor organizations, legal aid, and immigrant rights groups who contend that workplace retaliation is increasing, especially for immigrant workers in the current political climate. This measure is opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, on behalf of itself and several other business and employer associations, who believe, among other things, that the provision granting attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff will invite more litigation. The bill passed out of the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee on a 5-2 vote.

SUMMARY: Increases the time for an employee to file a retaliation claim with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) and provides that a prevailing plaintiff in a whistleblower action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes a person who believes that he or she had been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner to file a complaint with the DLSE within three years (as opposed to six months under existing law) after the occurrence of the violation. Provides that the three-year period may be extended for good cause.
2. Authorizes the court to award reasonable attorney's fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for a violation of the whistleblower provisions in Labor Code Section 1102.5.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits an employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, from discharging or otherwise discriminating, retaliating against, or taking any adverse action against any employee because the employee engaged in certain protected conduct. Allows an employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commission to file a complaint with the DLSE within six months of the occurrence of the violation. (Labor Code Section 98.7.)
2. Prohibits an employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, from discharging, retaliating against, and taking any other adverse action against an employee who discloses information about a violation of law to law enforcement, a government agency, or any supervisor or any other person, including another employee, with authority to investigate the violation. (Labor Code Section 1102.5.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: Existing law prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for exercising certain rights, including the right to report employer violations of the Labor Code or other laws. Retaliation can take the form of discharge, demotion, reassignment, or any other adverse, job-related action. Existing law authorizes an employee who has suffered retaliation to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) within six months of the occurrence of the violation. Existing law additionally provides so-called "whistleblower" protection that prohibits an employer from firing or otherwise retaliating against an employee who discloses information about a violation of the law to a government or law enforcement agency, to a supervisor, or any other person with the authority to investigate the violation. This bill makes two simple, yet significant, changes to these laws. First, this bill would extend the time for filing a retaliation complaint to three years (instead of six months) from the date that violation occurred. This measure would also specify that a plaintiff who prevails in a whistleblower action is entitled to attorney's fees.

Extension of Time to File: Under Labor Code Section 98.7, employees who believe that they were fired or suffered some adverse action in violation of any provision of the Labor Code may file a complaint with DLSE within six months after the occurrence of the violation. Once the complaint is filed with DLSE, the Labor Commissioner investigates a complaint and, if it determines that a violation occurred, orders the employer to remedy the violation. Remedies include reinstatement, payment of back wages or lost benefits, or any other remedy appropriate to the violation. If an employer fails to comply with the order, the Labor Commissioner may bring an action in court to enforce its order or, under recently enacted legislation, seek injunctive relief. AB 2946 will extend the time to file with the DLSE from six months to three years. Citing a Labor Commissioner's report of 2016, the author contends that many cases of workplace retaliation go unreported due to "lack of awareness of the statute of limitations, difficulty in finding legal representation, or gathering evidence." The author also points out that the time for filing a DLSE complaint is shorter than those provided in similar statutes; for example, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides a one-year time for filing, while the federal Fair Labor Standards Act provides filing periods of two or three years, depending upon the nature of the violation. Finally, the author notes that in the "current political climate," immigrant workers in particular are hesitant to come forward with retaliation claims.

Time to File and Relationship to AB 3081: This bill provides a more general extension of the time for filing than does AB 3081, which this Committee will also hear today. AB 3081, among other things, amends a provision of existing law that prevents an employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because of that employee's status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, in order to also prohibit an employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because of the employee's status as a victim of sexual harassment. For violations of this provision, AB 3081 extends the time for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking to file a claim to one year, and extends the time for a victim of sexual harassment to file a claim to three years. If AB 2946, the bill under consideration, becomes law and extends the time for filing all retaliation claims to three years, the provisions provided in AB 3081 would, effectively, be superseded. Although the bills do not amend the same section – and therefore will not require chaptering amendments – the authors may wish to reconcile their respective bills in order to eliminate any potential confusion as to which time frame would apply. (Possible remedying amendments to AB 3081 will be discussed in the analysis of that bill.)

Attorney's Fees Provision Consistent with Law and Public Policy: In addition to extending the time to file a retaliation complaint with DSLE, this bill also authorizes a court to award attorney's fees to an employee who successfully brings a civil action for retaliation under Labor Code Section 1102.5, the so-called "whistleblower" statute. As noted above, Section 1102.5 prohibits an employer from discharging or taking any other adverse action against an employee who reports unlawful conduct to law enforcement, a government agency, or to any supervisor or other employee with the authority to investigate the matter. While classic "whistleblower" statutes protect someone who discloses wrongdoing to some outside authority, such as law enforcement or a legislative committee, Section 1102.5 also protects an internal disclosure of a violation of the law to a supervisor or some other person up the workplace chain of command. For example, if an employee reported to Human Resources that she had been sexually assaulted by her employer, she would be protected from retaliation for making that report pursuant to Section 1102.5. This bill would provide that if the employee prevails in a civil action under this section, the employee would be entitled to attorney's fees. As the opponents point out, this is indeed a "one-sided" fee-shifting provision insofar as a prevailing employer would not similarly recover attorney fees. However, there is a good reason for this: statutes that serve the general public's interest by ferreting out wrong-doing often provide one-sided fee-shifting provisions, for the simple reason that, as a matter of public policy, governments want to encourage people to come forward and report wrongdoing by those who generally possess greater power and resources than the victim of wrongdoing. (See e.g. Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 66; see also Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021, which permits a court to award attorney's fees to the prevailing plaintiff in any type of case if the litigation serves a larger public purpose beyond providing a remedy to the victim.)

As noted below, the opposition correctly observes that the DLSE administrative process "provides an alternative to civil litigation," but then the opposition goes on to claim that this bill would "change this process and make it more litigious by adding the recovery of attorney's fees for the plaintiffs." However, it is not clear how the attorney's fees provision, which would only apply to a civil action in a court, will affect the DLSE administrative process. As the opponents themselves observe, under Section 1102.5 employees have the choice filing a claim with DLSE or filing a civil action in court. The attorney's fees provision in this bill would not award a plaintiff attorney's fees in the administrative proceeding. Rather, this bill would add express authorization that "the court" may award attorney's fees in a civil action. Although some opponents have indicated to the Committee that they believe that this bill will somehow permit attorney's fees in administrative proceedings, the more plausible opposition argument is that if employees can recover attorney's fees in a civil action they might abandon the DLSE administrative process. However, the proponents of this measure respond that employees are entitled to recover attorney's fees in a civil action for wage claims, but there is no evidence that workers who are cheated out of their wages have abandoned the Labor Commissioner's administrative process in favor of civil actions. (The Committee has seen no empirical data on this one way or the other.)

Without this express authorization, under existing law a prevailing plaintiff cannot recover attorney's fees under Section 1102.5 because California follows the so-called "American Rule," which holds that each party is responsible for its own attorney's fees unless a contract or statute expressly provides otherwise. (The so-called "English Rule" is the opposite: the prevailing party is entitled to recover attorney fees as a matter of right unless a contract or statute provides otherwise.) This bill will provide the express statutory authorization that is required for recovery under the American Rule.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, "workplace retaliation occurs when employers discharge, threaten with discharge, demote, suspend or subject employees to an adverse action including threats of deportation for exercising their rights under the Labor Code. Retaliation is not only pervasive," the author contends, "but also a growing problem due to the current political climate surrounding immigration." The author cites a Labor Commissioner report noting that retaliation claims increased by 22% between 2015 and 2016, but the author contends that this number does "not include the cases that were not filed for various reasons — lack of awareness of the length of the statute of limitations, difficulty finding legal representation, filing paperwork, or gathering evidence." The author concludes that "vulnerable worker populations with limited access to resources and legal representation would benefit from having more time to gather necessary evidence and materials to remedy disputes with employers." AB 2946 would address this problem, the author believes, by providing "employees with a three-year period of time to file a retaliation claim, aligning with the time to file a wage claim."

The California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA) writes that whistleblower protections "have always been regarded as one of the most important laws for exposing waste, fraud, and abuse by private and public entities, by ensuring that workers are protected when they blow the whistle or participate in investigations involving violations of law." Because workers are often the ones most likely to discover these violations, they should be provided with "robust protections" when they come forward. CELA also contends that "immigrant workers" are "particularly at risk for retaliation for reporting violations of law." Although legislation in 2013 strengthened "protections for immigrant workers under Section 1102.5," CELA contends that after three years "retaliation remains a significant problem for workers, especially immigrant workers, who are attempting to exercise their rights under the Labor Code or blow the whistle when there are violations of law. In today's political climate surrounding immigration, there is an even greater threat of workers being targeted because of their immigration status." CELA cites a recent Public Records Act request which revealed 95 immigration-related retaliation claims were filed in 2017, compared to only 20 in 2016 and seven in 2015.

Based on its experience, CELA believes that the two biggest barriers that immigrant workers face when threatened with retaliation "is the relatively short timeline for filing a retaliation claim and the difficulty in securing an attorney who can help them navigate the legal process and help protect them from threats of deportation." CELA concludes that "AB 2946 will help address some of these significant barriers . . . by extending the statute of limitations . . . and by providing attorney's fees for claims under Labor Section 1102.5." Several other labor and legal aid organizations support this bill for the same reasons articulated by CELA.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), writing on behalf of itself and several other business and employer associations, opposes AB 2946 because it believes that the measure's "one-sided attorney's fee provision" will "incentivize further litigation." The Chamber stresses that the DLSE administrative process provides an important alternative to civil litigation for both employers and employees. The Chamber contends that "AB 2946 would change this [administrative] process and make it more litigious by adding the recovery of attorney's fees for the plaintiff." The Chamber also notes that employees have "the option of filing a claim with the Labor Commissioner or in civil court . . . AB 2946 will change the dynamics of this process by allowing the recovery of attorney's fees." The Chamber also adds that if there must be a provision adding attorney's fees, "it should not be one-sided. A two-way attorney's fee shifting provision provides a level playing field for litigation that will help deter any frivolous cases being filed due to concern that the litigant could ultimately pay for the costs of litigation, including attorney's fees. Both parties should have some financial risk in pursuing litigation in order to minimize frivolous lawsuits that overburden the courts' dockets and preclude valid claims from being resolved on a timely basis through the DLSE process."

The United Chamber Advocacy Network (UCAN) opposes this bill for many of the same reasons as the other opponents, but they add that surveys they have conducted show that their members believe that the "top issue" affecting their "bottom line" is the threat or actuality of litigation costs. UCAN contends that the provisions of this bill exacerbate those concerns in two ways: (1) extending the time to bring claims to three years will "cause employers increased uncertainty in addition to increased liability;" and (2) awarding attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff "undermines the essence of . . . the DLSE complaint process by requiring a one-sided attorney's fees provision that will incentivize further litigation."

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Bend the Arc: Jewish Action

Bet Tzedek

California Immigrant Policy Center

Centro Legal de la Raza, Oakland

Day Worker Center of Mountain View

Employee Rights Center

Justice at Work Law Group, LLP

Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance

La Raza Centro Legal

Law Office of Richard Hobbs

Legal Aid at Work

National Employment Law Project

National Immigration Law Center

Plumbers, Steamfitters, Pipefitters & HVAC Service Technicians, UA Local 383

Santa Clara Valley Contractors' Association

Service Employees International Union, California

Service, Immigrant Rights and Education Network

SOMOS Mayfair

Worksafe

Opposition

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. – Northern California Chapter

Associated General Contractors

California Ambulance Association

California Apartment Association

California Association for Health Services at Home

California Association of Joint Powers Authorities

California Association of Winegrape Growers

California Beer and Beverage Distributors

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Farm Bureau Federation

California League of Food Producers

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

California New Car Dealers Association

California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors

California Restaurant Association

California State Association of Counties

California Trucking Association

Camarillo Chamber of Commerce

Civil Justice Association of California

Construction Employers’ Association

Family Business Association of California

Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce

Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce

League of California Cities

North Orange County Chamber of Commerce

Oceanside Chamber of Commerce

Official Police Garages of Los Angeles

Oxnard Chamber of Commerce

Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce

Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce

Southwest California Legislative Council

Victor Valley Chamber of Commerce

Western Growers Association

Analysis Prepared by: Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: April 11, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Tony Thurmond, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2946 (

Author:Kalra) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2018

SUBJECT: Division of Labor Standards Enforcement: complaint

SUMMARY: Extends the statute of limitations for complaints alleging workplace retaliation from six months to three years and authorizes the payment of attorney’s fees to employees who successfully sue for retaliation based on whistleblowing. Specifically, this bill:

1. Extends the filing period with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) to three years for complaints based on a person’s belief that he or she has been discharged or discriminated against by an employer in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner (LC).
2. Authorizes a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for a violation of his or her right to disclose information that plaintiff has reasonable cause to believe concerns a violation by the employer of, among other things, a state or federal statute.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes a person who believes he or she has been discharged or discriminated against in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the LC to file a complaint with the DLSE within six months after the occurrence of the violation.
2. Prohibits an employer, or person acting on behalf of the employer, to make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency or other specified persons, or participating in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses, among other things, a violation of state or federal statute.
3. Prohibits an employer, or person acting on behalf of the employer, from retaliating against an employee who discloses, or the employer thinks will disclose, information to a government or law enforcement agency or other specified persons, or participating in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses, among other things, a violation of state or federal statute.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Note: This bill is double referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee upon passage out of this Committee.

Labor Code Section 98.7 protects an employee from workplace retaliation for filing a complaint under certain provisions of the Labor Code. Protected complaints include those alleging health and safety, equal pay, or sick leave violations. In addition, under Labor Code Section 1102.5, retaliation is prohibited when an employee “whistleblows” on an employer because he or she believes the employer has violated the law.

According to the author, complaints of workplace retaliation are on the rise. A 2016 Retaliation Complaint Report from the LC cites a 70 percent increase from 2012 to 2016 in the number of cases of retaliation due to workers asserting their rights under the labor code. This means that over 1,000 more cases were filed in 2016 than in 2012.

Arguments in Support

In support of the bill, the National Employment Law Project argues that extending the filing period for workers who allege retaliation for asserting their rights under the labor code is critical for “ensuring vulnerable workers know their rights, can take action to prevent the chilling effect retaliation has across the worksite, and to level the playing field for law-abiding employers who are forced to compete with illegal retaliation practices.”

Worksafe also supports extending the six month filing period, asserting that “workers are often misled because the deadline to file a wage theft claim through the LC is three years; workers often assume that it is the same for a retaliation claim.”

Also in support of the bill, Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN) states that the existing monetary remedies for an employee whistleblower are inadequate as the payment of attorney’s fees “can be a burden to plaintiffs who are wronged or even a deterrent to filing altogether.”

Arguments in Opposition

In opposition, a coalition of employer organizations including the California Chamber of Commerce, argues that the bill “undermines the essence of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) complaint process by requiring a one-sided attorney’s fee provision that will incentivize further litigation.” In addition, the opposition notes that “the DLSE does not have exclusive jurisdiction over retaliation complaints. An employee has the option of filing a claim with the Labor Commissioner or in civil court. Thus, the DLSE provides an alternative to civil litigation.”

Related and Prior Legislation

SB 306 (Hertzberg), Chapter 460, Statutes of 2017, authorized the LC to seek an immediate and temporary injunction when workers face retaliation for asserting their rights under the law and gave the LC authority to issue citations and penalties directly to enforce retaliation claims, rather than exclusively through the courts. It also authorized an employee who is bringing a civil action for a retaliation claim to seek injunctive relief from the court.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Bend the Arc: Jewish Action

Bet Tzedek

California Immigrant Policy Center

Centro Legal de la Raza, Oakland

Day Worker Center of Mountain View

Employee Rights Center

Justice at Work Law Group, LLP

Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance

La Raza Centro Legal

Law Office of Richard Hobbs

Legal Aid at Work

National Employment Law Project

National Immigration Law Center

Plumbers, Steamfitters, Pipefitters & HVAC Service Technicians, UA Local 383

Santa Clara Valley Contractors' Association

Service Employees International Union, California

Service, Immigrant Rights and Education Network

SOMOS Mayfair

Worksafe

Opposition

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. – Northern California Chapter

Associated General Contractors

California Ambulance Association

California Apartment Association

California Association for Health Services at Home

California Association of Joint Powers Authorities

California Association of Winegrape Growers

California Beer and Beverage Distributors

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Farm Bureau Federation

California League of Food Producers

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

California New Car Dealers Association

California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors

California Restaurant Association

California State Association of Counties

California Trucking Association

Camarillo Chamber of Commerce

Civil Justice Association of California

Construction Employers’ Association

Family Business Association of California

Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce

Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce

League of California Cities

North Orange County Chamber of Commerce

Oceanside Chamber of Commerce

Official Police Garages of Los Angeles

Oxnard Chamber of Commerce

Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce

Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce

Southwest California Legislative Council

Victor Valley Chamber of Commerce

Western Growers Association

Analysis Prepared by: Megan Lane / L. & E. /