SB 881: Paid sick days: accrual and use.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2023-04-11
Current Status:
Failed
(2024-02-01: Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
The bill raises statewide paid sick leave minimums for most California workers. Employers using an alternate accrual method must give employees at least 40 hours (five days) of sick leave by the 200th day or within each year, may cap total accrual at 80 hours (ten days), and may limit yearly carryover use to 40 hours. It also requires sick pay for nonexempt workers to be paid at their base rate, lets employers ask for a written statement (and documentation for absences of three or more days), increases in‑home supportive services providers’ annual sick leave to 40 hours, blocks most new local sick‑leave rules, and removes private attorney‑general (PAGA) lawsuits for enforcing these sick‑leave rules.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
Existing law, with certain exceptions, entitles an employee to paid sick days for certain purposes if the employee works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment. Existing law requires the leave to be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked, and to be available for use beginning on the 90th day of employment.
Existing law authorizes an employer to use a different accrual method as long as an employee has no less than 24 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 120th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period. Existing law also provides that an employer may satisfy the accrual requirements by providing not less than 24 hours or 3 days of paid sick leave that is available to the employee to use by the completion of the employees 120th calendar day of employment.
Under existing law, an employer has no obligation under these provisions to allow an employees total accrual of paid sick leave to exceed 48 hours or 6 days, provided that an employees rights to accrue and use paid sick leave are not otherwise limited, as specified. Under existing law, sick leave carries over to the following year of employment, but an employer is permitted to limit the use of the carryover amount, in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period, to 24 hours or 3 days.
This bill would modify the employers alternate sick leave accrual method to require that an employee have no less than 40 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 200th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period. The bill would modify that satisfaction provision to authorize an employer to satisfy accrual requirements by providing not less than 40 hours or 5 days of paid sick leave that is available to the employee to use by the completion of the employees 200th calendar day of employment. The bill would also provide that an employer is under no obligation to allow an employees total accrual of paid sick leave to exceed 80 hours or 10 days, as specified. The bill would raise the employers authorized limitation on the employees use of carryover sick leave to 40 hours or 5 days.
Under existing law, an employer is not required to provide additional paid sick leave days if the employer has a paid leave policy or paid time off policy that provided paid sick leave or paid time off to a class of employees before January 1, 2015, and the employee was eligible to earn at least 3 days or 24 hours of sick leave or paid time off within 9 months of employment.
This bill would instead provide that an employer is not required to provide additional paid sick leave days in the above circumstances if the employer provided paid sick leave or paid time off to a class of employees before January 1, 2024, and the employee was eligible to earn at least 5 days or 40 hours of sick leave or paid time off within 9 months of employment, subject to certain conditions.
Existing law requires paid sick leave for nonexempt employees to be calculated in the same manner as the regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time, as specified.
This bill would instead require paid sick leave for nonexempt employees to be paid at the employees base rate of pay. The bill would also authorize an employer to request an employee, if an employee uses paid sick leave, to provide a written statement indicating that the employee was absent from work for a specified reason, and in certain cases, to provide written documentation regarding the leave. The bill would provide that an employer is not in violation of these provisions if the employer denies leave based on a determination that the verification or documentation is false.
Existing law establishes that providers of in-home supportive services accrue sick leave in accordance with a schedule that is based on the timeline for state minimum wage increases, up to a maximum of 24 hours or 3 days when the minimum wage reaches $15 per hour.
This bill would amend the schedule for in-home supportive services providers to increase the sick leave accrual maximum to 40 hours or 5 days in each year of employment, beginning January 1, 2026.
The bill would also provide that, on or after January 1, 2024, a county, city, or municipality shall not adopt an ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation, or amend an ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding paid sick leave, other than related to COVID-19-specific paid leave. The bill would provide that these sick leave provisions would preempt any existing local ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding earned sick leave, other than excluding local ordinances regarding COVID-19-specific sick leave, leave and local ordinances enacted before January 1, 2023, as specified.
Existing law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to enforce the above provisions governing paid sick leave, including by investigating an alleged violation, and ordering appropriate temporary relief to mitigate the violation, issuing a citation, and filing a civil action.
The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 authorizes an aggrieved employee who complies with specified notice and filing requirements to bring a civil action to recover specified civil penalties that would otherwise be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency.
This bill would provide that the paid sick leave provisions are not enforceable by an action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities and counties, including charter cities and counties.
Existing law, with certain exceptions, entitles an employee to paid sick days for certain purposes if the employee works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment. Existing law requires the leave to be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked, and to be available for use beginning on the 90th day of employment.
Existing law authorizes an employer to use a different accrual method as long as an employee has no less than 24 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 120th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period. Existing law also provides that an employer may satisfy the accrual requirements by providing not less than 24 hours or 3 days of paid sick leave that is available to the employee to use by the completion of the employees 120th calendar day of employment.
Under existing law, an employer has no obligation under these provisions to allow an employees total accrual of paid sick leave to exceed 48 hours or 6 days, provided that an employees rights to accrue and use paid sick leave are not otherwise limited, as specified. Under existing law, sick leave carries over to the following year of employment, but an employer is permitted to limit the use of the carryover amount, in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period, to 24 hours or 3 days.
This bill would modify the employers alternate sick leave accrual method to require that an employee have no less than 40 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 200th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period. The bill would modify that satisfaction provision to authorize an employer to satisfy accrual requirements by providing not less than 40 hours or 5 days of paid sick leave that is available to the employee to use by the completion of the employees 200th calendar day of employment. The bill would also provide that an employer is under no obligation to allow an employees total accrual of paid sick leave to exceed 80 hours or 10 days, as specified. The bill would raise the employers authorized limitation on the employees use of carryover sick leave to 40 hours or 5 days.
Under existing law, an employer is not required to provide additional paid sick leave days if the employer has a paid leave policy or paid time off policy that provided paid sick leave or paid time off to a class of employees before January 1, 2015, and the employee was eligible to earn at least 3 days or 24 hours of sick leave or paid time off within 9 months of employment.
This bill would instead provide that an employer is not required to provide additional paid sick leave days in the above circumstances if the employer provided paid sick leave or paid time off to a class of employees before January 1, 2024, and the employee was eligible to earn at least 5 days or 40 hours of sick leave or paid time off within 9 months of employment, subject to certain conditions.
Existing law requires paid sick leave for nonexempt employees to be calculated in the same manner as the regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time, as specified.
This bill would instead require paid sick leave for nonexempt employees to be paid at the employees base rate of pay. The bill would also authorize an employer to request an employee, if an employee uses paid sick leave, to provide a written statement indicating that the employee was absent from work for a specified reason, and in certain cases, to provide written documentation regarding the leave. The bill would provide that an employer is not in violation of these provisions if the employer denies leave based on a determination that the verification or documentation is false.
Existing law establishes that providers of in-home supportive services accrue sick leave in accordance with a schedule that is based on the timeline for state minimum wage increases, up to a maximum of 24 hours or 3 days when the minimum wage reaches $15 per hour.
This bill would amend the schedule for in-home supportive services providers to increase the sick leave accrual maximum to 40 hours or 5 days in each year of employment, beginning January 1, 2026.
The bill would also provide that, on or after January 1, 2024, a county, city, or municipality shall not adopt an ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation, or amend an ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding paid sick leave, other than related to COVID-19-specific paid leave. The bill would provide that these sick leave provisions would preempt any existing local ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding earned sick leave, other than local ordinances regarding COVID-19-specific sick leave, as specified.
Existing law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to enforce the above provisions governing paid sick leave, including by investigating an alleged violation, and ordering appropriate temporary relief to mitigate the violation, issuing a citation, and filing a civil action.
The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 authorizes an aggrieved employee who complies with specified notice and filing requirements to bring a civil action to recover specified civil penalties that would otherwise be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency.
This bill would provide that the paid sick leave provisions are not enforceable by an action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities and counties, including charter cities and counties.
Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the ABC test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Under the ABC test, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entitys business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of the ABC test described above. Existing law, instead, provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the multifactor test previously adopted in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the ABC test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Under the ABC test, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entitys business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification.
Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of the ABC test described above. Existing law, instead, provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the multifactor test previously adopted in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341.
This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
(a)(1)An employee who, on or after July 1, 2015, works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days as specified in this section. For an individual provider of waiver personal care services under Section 14132.97 of the Welfare and Institutions Code who also provides in-home supportive services in an applicable month, eligibility shall be determined based on the aggregate number of monthly hours worked between in-home supportive services and waiver personal care services pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 14132.971.
(2)On and after July 1, 2018, a provider of in-home supportive services under Section 14132.95, 14132.952, or 14132.956 of, or Article 7 (commencing with Section 12300) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 9 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, who works in California for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days as specified in subdivision (e) and subject to the rate of accrual in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). For an individual provider of waiver personal care services under Section 14132.97 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, entitlement to paid sick days begins on July 1, 2019.
(b)(1)An employee shall accrue paid sick days at the rate of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked, beginning at the commencement of employment or the operative date of this article, whichever is later, subject to the use and accrual limitations set forth in this section.
(2)An employee who is exempt from overtime requirements as an administrative, executive, or professional employee under a wage order of the Industrial Welfare Commission is deemed to work 40 hours per workweek for the purposes of this section, unless the employees normal workweek is less than 40 hours, in which case the employee shall accrue paid sick days based upon that normal workweek.
(3)An employer may use a different accrual method, other than providing one hour per every 30 hours worked, provided that the accrual is on a regular basis so that an employee has no less than 40 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 200th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period.
(4)An employer may satisfy the accrual requirements of this section by providing not less than 40 hours or five days of paid sick leave that is available to the employee to use by the completion of the employees 200th calendar day of employment.
(c)An employee shall be entitled to use accrued paid sick days beginning on the 90th day of employment, after which day the employee may use paid sick days as they are accrued.
(d)Accrued paid sick days shall carry over to the following year of employment. However, an employer may limit an employees use of accrued paid sick days to 40 hours or five days in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period. This section shall be satisfied and no accrual or carryover is required if the full amount of leave is received at the beginning of each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period. The term full amount of leave means five days or 40 hours.
(e)For a provider of in-home supportive services under Section 14132.95, 14132.952, or 14132.956 of, or Article 7 (commencing with Section 12300) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 9 of, and an individual provider of waiver personal care services under Section 14132.97 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, the term full amount of leave is defined as follows:
(1)Eight hours or one day in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period beginning July 1, 2018.
(2)Sixteen hours or two days in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period beginning when the minimum wage, as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1182.12 and accounting for any years postponed under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 1182.12, has reached thirteen dollars ($13) per hour.
(3)Twenty-four hours or three days in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period beginning when the minimum wage, as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1182.12 and accounting for any years postponed under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 1182.12, has reached fifteen dollars ($15) per hour.
(4)Forty hours or five days in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period, beginning January 1, 2026.
(f)An employer is not required to provide additional paid sick days pursuant to this section if the employer has a paid leave policy or paid time off policy, the employer makes available an amount of leave applicable to employees that may be used for the same purposes and under the same conditions as specified in this section, and the policy satisfies one of the following:
(1)Satisfies the accrual, carryover, and use requirements of this section.
(2)Provided paid sick leave or paid time off to a class of employees before January 1, 2024, pursuant to a sick leave policy or paid time off policy that used an accrual method different than providing one hour per 30 hours worked, provided that the accrual is on a regular basis so that an employee, including an employee hired into that class after January 1, 2024, has no less than one day or eight hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off within three months of employment of each calendar year, or each 12-month period, and the employee was eligible to earn at least five days or 40 hours of sick leave or paid time off within nine months of employment. If an employer modifies the accrual method used in the policy it had in place prior to January 1, 2024, the employer shall comply with any accrual method set forth in subdivision (b) or provide the full amount of leave at the beginning of each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period. This section does not prohibit the employer from increasing the accrual amount or rate for a class of employees covered by this subdivision.
(3)Notwithstanding any other law, sick leave benefits provided pursuant to the provisions of Sections 19859 to 19868.3, inclusive, of the Government Code, or annual leave benefits provided pursuant to the provisions of Sections 19858.3 to 19858.7, inclusive, of the Government Code, or by provisions of a memorandum of understanding reached pursuant to Section 3517.5 that incorporate or supersede provisions of Section 19859 to 19868.3, inclusive, or Sections 19858.3 to 19858.7, inclusive of the Government Code, meet the requirements of this section.
(g)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), an employer is not required to provide compensation to an employee for accrued, unused paid sick days upon termination, resignation, retirement, or other separation from employment.
(2)If an employee separates from an employer and is rehired by the employer within one year from the date of separation, previously accrued and unused paid sick days shall be reinstated. The employee shall be entitled to use those previously accrued and unused paid sick days and to accrue additional paid sick days upon rehiring, subject to the use and accrual limitations set forth in this section. An employer is not required to reinstate accrued paid time off to an employee that was paid out at the time of termination, resignation, or separation of employment.
(h)An employer may lend paid sick days to an employee in advance of accrual, at the employers discretion and with proper documentation.
(i)An employer shall provide an employee with written notice that sets forth the amount of paid sick leave available, or paid time off leave an employer provides in lieu of sick leave, for use on either the employees itemized wage statement described in Section 226 or in a separate writing provided on the designated pay date with the employees payment of wages. If an employer provides unlimited paid sick leave or unlimited paid time off to an employee, the employer may satisfy this section by indicating on the notice or the employees itemized wage statement unlimited. The penalties described in this article for a violation of this subdivision shall be in lieu of the penalties for a violation of Section 226. This subdivision shall apply to employers covered by Wage Order 11 or 12 of the Industrial Welfare Commission only on and after January 21, 2016.
(j)An employer has no obligation under this section to allow an employees total accrual of paid sick leave to exceed 80 hours or 10 days, provided that an employees rights to accrue and use paid sick leave are not limited other than as allowed under this section.
(k)An employee may determine how much paid sick leave they need to use, provided that an employer may set a reasonable minimum increment, not to exceed two hours, for the use of paid sick leave.
(l)For the purposes of this section, an employer shall calculate paid sick leave using any of the following calculations:
(1)Paid sick time for nonexempt employees shall be paid at the employees base rate of pay.
(2)Paid sick time for nonexempt employees shall be calculated by dividing the employees total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the employees total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment.
(3)Paid sick time for exempt employees shall be calculated in the same manner as the employer calculates wages for other forms of paid leave time.
(m)If the need for paid sick leave is foreseeable, the employee shall provide reasonable advance notification. If the need for paid sick leave is unforeseeable, the employee shall provide notice of the need for the leave as soon as practicable.
(n)(1)If an employee uses paid sick leave, an employer may request that an employee provide a written statement signed by the employee stating that the employee was absent from work for a reason specified in subdivision (a) of Section 246.5.
(2)If an employee uses paid sick leave on three or more consecutive work days, an employer may request that an employee provide reasonable written documentation demonstrating that the employee was absent from work for a reason specified in subdivision (a) of Section 246.5.
(3)An employer shall not be in violation of this section if the employer denies leave based on a determination that the verification or documentation provided is false.
(o)An employer shall provide payment for sick leave taken by an employee no later than the payday for the next regular payroll period after the sick leave was taken.
(p)The State Department of Social Services, in consultation with stakeholders, shall convene a workgroup to implement paid sick leave for in-home supportive services providers as specified in this section. This workgroup shall finish its implementation work by November 1, 2017, and the State Department of Social Services shall issue guidance such as an all-county letter or similar instructions by December 1, 2017.
(q)No later than February 1, 2019, the State Department of Social Services, in consultation with the Department of Finance and stakeholders, shall reconvene the paid sick leave workgroup for in-home supportive services providers. The workgroup shall discuss how paid sick leave affects the provision of in-home supportive services. The workgroup shall consider the potential need for a process to cover an in-home supportive services recipients authorized hours when a provider needs to utilize their sick time. This workgroup shall finish its work by November 1, 2019.
(r)Notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), the State Department of Social Services may implement, interpret, or make specific this section by means of an all-county letter, or similar instructions, without taking any regulatory action.
(s)(1)On or after January 1, 2024, a county, city, or municipality shall not adopt any ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation or amend any such ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding paid sick leave other than related to COVID-19-specific paid sick leave.
(2)This section shall preempt any existing local ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding earned sick leave, other than local except as specified as follows:
(A)Local ordinances regarding COVID-19-specific sick leave, including any local ordinance that requires an employer to provide a number of paid sick days in excess of what is required by this section.
(B)On and after January 1, 2024, an employer who, pursuant to a local ordinance enacted before January 1, 2023, is required to provide sick leave in an amount that exceeds the sick leave requirements specified in subdivision (b) shall provide the amount of sick leave required by that local ordinance.
SEC. 2.Section 248.5 of the Labor Code is amended to read:248.5.(a)The Labor Commissioner shall enforce this article, including investigating an alleged violation, and ordering appropriate temporary relief to mitigate the violation or to maintain the status quo pending the completion of a full investigation or hearing through the procedures set forth in Sections 98, 98.3, 98.7, 98.74, or 1197.1, including by issuance of a citation against an employer who violates this article, and by filing a civil action. If a citation is issued, the procedures for issuing, contesting, and enforcing judgments for citations and civil penalties issued by the Labor Commissioner shall be the same as those set out in Section 98.74 or 1197.1, as appropriate.
(b)(1)If the Labor Commissioner, in any administrative proceeding under subdivision (a), determines that a violation of this article has occurred, they may order any appropriate relief, including reinstatement, backpay, the payment of sick days unlawfully withheld, and the payment of an additional sum in the form of an administrative penalty to an employee or other person whose rights under this article were violated.
(2)If paid sick days were unlawfully withheld, the dollar amount of paid sick days withheld from the employee multiplied by three, or two hundred fifty dollars ($250), whichever amount is greater, but not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), shall be included in the administrative penalty.
(3)If a violation of this article results in other harm to the employee or person, such as discharge from employment, or otherwise results in a violation of the rights of the employee or person, the administrative penalty shall include a sum of fifty dollars ($50) for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000).
(c)Where prompt compliance by an employer is not forthcoming, the Labor Commissioner may take any appropriate enforcement action to secure compliance, including the filing of a civil action. In compensation to the state for the costs of investigating and remedying the violation, the commissioner may order the violating employer to pay to the state a sum of not more than fifty dollars ($50) for each day or portion of a day a violation occurs or continues for each employee or other person whose rights under this article were violated.
(d)An employee or other person may report to the Labor Commissioner a suspected violation of this article. The commissioner shall encourage reporting pursuant to this subdivision by keeping confidential, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, the name and other identifying information of the employee or person reporting the violation. However, the commissioner may disclose that persons name and identifying information as necessary to enforce this article or for other appropriate purposes, upon the authorization of that person.
(e)The Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the employer or other person violating this article and, upon prevailing, shall be entitled to collect legal or equitable relief on behalf of the aggrieved as may be appropriate to remedy the violation, including reinstatement, backpay, the payment of sick days unlawfully withheld, the payment of an additional sum, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), as liquidated damages in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) to each employee or person whose rights under this article were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, plus, if the employer has unlawfully withheld paid sick days to an employee, the dollar amount of paid sick days withheld from the employee multiplied by three; or two hundred fifty dollars ($250), whichever amount is greater; and reinstatement in employment or injunctive relief; and further shall be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and costs, provided, however, that any person or entity enforcing this article on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law shall, upon prevailing, be entitled only to equitable, injunctive, or restitutionary relief, and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
(f)In an administrative or civil action brought under this article, the Labor Commissioner or court, as the case may be, shall award interest on all amounts due and unpaid at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the Civil Code.
(g)This article shall not be enforced by an action under Part 13 (commencing with Section 2698).
(h)The remedies, penalties, and procedures provided under this article are cumulative.
(i)An employer shall not be assessed any penalty or liquidated damages under this article due to an isolated and unintentional payroll error or written notice error that is a clerical or an inadvertent mistake regarding the accrual or available use of paid sick leave. In reviewing for compliance with this section, the factfinder may consider as a relevant factor whether the employer, prior to an alleged violation, has adopted and is in compliance with a set of policies, procedures, and practices that fully comply with this section.
SEC. 3.The Legislature finds and declares that establishing uniform statewide regulation of certain aspects of paid sick leave is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this act shall apply to all cities and counties, including charter cities and counties.
(a)(1)An employee who, on or after July 1, 2015, works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days as specified in this section. For an individual provider of waiver personal care services under Section 14132.97 of the Welfare and Institutions Code who also provides in-home supportive services in an applicable month, eligibility shall be determined based on the aggregate number of monthly hours worked between in-home supportive services and waiver personal care services pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 14132.971.
(2)On and after July 1, 2018, a provider of in-home supportive services under Section 14132.95, 14132.952, or 14132.956 of, or Article 7 (commencing with Section 12300) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 9 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, who works in California for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days as specified in subdivision (e) and subject to the rate of accrual in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). For an individual provider of waiver personal care services under Section 14132.97 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, entitlement to paid sick days begins on July 1, 2019.
(b)(1)An employee shall accrue paid sick days at the rate of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked, beginning at the commencement of employment or the operative date of this article, whichever is later, subject to the use and accrual limitations set forth in this section.
(2)An employee who is exempt from overtime requirements as an administrative, executive, or professional employee under a wage order of the Industrial Welfare Commission is deemed to work 40 hours per workweek for the purposes of this section, unless the employees normal workweek is less than 40 hours, in which case the employee shall accrue paid sick days based upon that normal workweek.
(3)An employer may use a different accrual method, other than providing one hour per every 30 hours worked, provided that the accrual is on a regular basis so that an employee has no less than 24 40 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 120th 200th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period.
(4)An employer may satisfy the accrual requirements of this section by providing not less than 24 40 hours or three five days of paid sick leave that is available to the employee to use by the completion of the employees 120th 200th calendar day of employment.
(c)An employee shall be entitled to use accrued paid sick days beginning on the 90th day of employment, after which day the employee may use paid sick days as they are accrued.
(d)Accrued paid sick days shall carry over to the following year of employment. However, an employer may limit an employees use of accrued paid sick days to 24 40 hours or three five days in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period. This section shall be satisfied and no accrual or carryover is required if the full amount of leave is received at the beginning of each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period. The term full amount of leave means three five days or 24 40 hours.
(e)For a provider of in-home supportive services under Section 14132.95, 14132.952, or 14132.956 of, or Article 7 (commencing with Section 12300) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 9 of, and an individual provider of waiver personal care services under Section 14132.97 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, the term full amount of leave is defined as follows:
(1)Eight hours or one day in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period beginning July 1, 2018.
(2)Sixteen hours or two days in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period beginning when the minimum wage, as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1182.12 and accounting for any years postponed under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 1182.12, has reached thirteen dollars ($13) per hour.
(3)Twenty-four hours or three days in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period beginning when the minimum wage, as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1182.12 and accounting for any years postponed under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 1182.12, has reached fifteen dollars ($15) per hour.
(4)Forty hours or five days in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period, beginning January 1, 2026.
(f)An employer is not required to provide additional paid sick days pursuant to this section if the employer has a paid leave policy or paid time off policy, the employer makes available an amount of leave applicable to employees that may be used for the same purposes and under the same conditions as specified in this section, and the policy satisfies one of the following:
(1)Satisfies the accrual, carryover, and use requirements of this section.
(2)Provided paid sick leave or paid time off to a class of employees before January 1, 2015, 2024, pursuant to a sick leave policy or paid time off policy that used an accrual method different than providing one hour per 30 hours worked, provided that the accrual is on a regular basis so that an employee, including an employee hired into that class after January 1, 2015, 2024, has no less than one day or eight hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off within three months of employment of each calendar year, or each 12-month period, and the employee was eligible to earn at least three five days or 24 40 hours of sick leave or paid time off within nine months of employment. If an employer modifies the accrual method used in the policy it had in place prior to January 1, 2015, 2024, the employer shall comply with any accrual method set forth in subdivision (b) or provide the full amount of leave at the beginning of each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period. This section does not prohibit the employer from increasing the accrual amount or rate for a class of employees covered by this subdivision.
(3)Notwithstanding any other law, sick leave benefits provided pursuant to the provisions of Sections 19859 to 19868.3, inclusive, of the Government Code, or annual leave benefits provided pursuant to the provisions of Sections 19858.3 to 19858.7, inclusive, of the Government Code, or by provisions of a memorandum of understanding reached pursuant to Section 3517.5 that incorporate or supersede provisions of Section 19859 to 19868.3, inclusive, or Sections 19858.3 to 19858.7, inclusive of the Government Code, meet the requirements of this section.
(g)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), an employer is not required to provide compensation to an employee for accrued, unused paid sick days upon termination, resignation, retirement, or other separation from employment.
(2)If an employee separates from an employer and is rehired by the employer within one year from the date of separation, previously accrued and unused paid sick days shall be reinstated. The employee shall be entitled to use those previously accrued and unused paid sick days and to accrue additional paid sick days upon rehiring, subject to the use and accrual limitations set forth in this section. An employer is not required to reinstate accrued paid time off to an employee that was paid out at the time of termination, resignation, or separation of employment.
(h)An employer may lend paid sick days to an employee in advance of accrual, at the employers discretion and with proper documentation.
(i)An employer shall provide an employee with written notice that sets forth the amount of paid sick leave available, or paid time off leave an employer provides in lieu of sick leave, for use on either the employees itemized wage statement described in Section 226 or in a separate writing provided on the designated pay date with the employees payment of wages. If an employer provides unlimited paid sick leave or unlimited paid time off to an employee, the employer may satisfy this section by indicating on the notice or the employees itemized wage statement unlimited. The penalties described in this article for a violation of this subdivision shall be in lieu of the penalties for a violation of Section 226. This subdivision shall apply to employers covered by Wage Order 11 or 12 of the Industrial Welfare Commission only on and after January 21, 2016.
(j)An employer has no obligation under this section to allow an employees total accrual of paid sick leave to exceed 48 80 hours or 6 10 days, provided that an employees rights to accrue and use paid sick leave are not limited other than as allowed under this section.
(k)An employee may determine how much paid sick leave they need to use, provided that an employer may set a reasonable minimum increment, not to exceed two hours, for the use of paid sick leave.
(l)For the purposes of this section, an employer shall calculate paid sick leave using any of the following calculations:
(1)Paid sick time for nonexempt employees shall be calculated in the same manner as the regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time, whether or not the employee actually works overtime in that workweek. paid at the employees base rate of pay.
(2)Paid sick time for nonexempt employees shall be calculated by dividing the employees total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the employees total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment.
(3)Paid sick time for exempt employees shall be calculated in the same manner as the employer calculates wages for other forms of paid leave time.
(m)If the need for paid sick leave is foreseeable, the employee shall provide reasonable advance notification. If the need for paid sick leave is unforeseeable, the employee shall provide notice of the need for the leave as soon as practicable.
(n)(1)If an employee uses paid sick leave, an employer may request that an employee provide a written statement signed by the employee stating that the employee was absent from work for a reason specified in subdivision (a) of Section 246.5.
(2)If an employee uses paid sick leave on three or more consecutive work days, an employer may request that an employee provide reasonable written documentation demonstrating that the employee was absent from work for a reason specified in subdivision (a) of Section 246.5.
(3)An employer shall not be in violation of this section if the employer denies leave based on a determination that the verification or documentation provided is false.
(n)(o)An employer shall provide payment for sick leave taken by an employee no later than the payday for the next regular payroll period after the sick leave was taken.
(o)(p)The State Department of Social Services, in consultation with stakeholders, shall convene a workgroup to implement paid sick leave for in-home supportive services providers as specified in this section. This workgroup shall finish its implementation work by November 1, 2017, and the State Department of Social Services shall issue guidance such as an all-county letter or similar instructions by December 1, 2017.
(p)(q)No later than February 1, 2019, the State Department of Social Services, in consultation with the Department of Finance and stakeholders, shall reconvene the paid sick leave workgroup for in-home supportive services providers. The workgroup shall discuss how paid sick leave affects the provision of in-home supportive services. The workgroup shall consider the potential need for a process to cover an in-home supportive services recipients authorized hours when a provider needs to utilize their sick time. This workgroup shall finish its work by November 1, 2019.
(q)(r)Notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), the State Department of Social Services may implement, interpret, or make specific this section by means of an all-county letter, or similar instructions, without taking any regulatory action.
(s)(1)On or after January 1, 2024, a county, city, or municipality shall not adopt any ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation or amend any such ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding paid sick leave other than related to COVID-19-specific paid sick leave.
(2)This section shall preempt any existing local ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding earned sick leave, other than local ordinances regarding COVID-19-specific sick leave, including any local ordinance that requires an employer to provide a number of paid sick days in excess of what is required by this section.
SEC. 2.Section 248.5 of the Labor Code is amended to read:248.5.(a)The Labor Commissioner shall enforce this article, including investigating an alleged violation, and ordering appropriate temporary relief to mitigate the violation or to maintain the status quo pending the completion of a full investigation or hearing through the procedures set forth in Sections 98, 98.3, 98.7, 98.74, or 1197.1, including by issuance of a citation against an employer who violates this article, and by filing a civil action. If a citation is issued, the procedures for issuing, contesting, and enforcing judgments for citations and civil penalties issued by the Labor Commissioner shall be the same as those set out in Section 98.74 or 1197.1, as appropriate.
(b)(1)If the Labor Commissioner, in any administrative proceeding under subdivision (a), determines that a violation of this article has occurred, they may order any appropriate relief, including reinstatement, backpay, the payment of sick days unlawfully withheld, and the payment of an additional sum in the form of an administrative penalty to an employee or other person whose rights under this article were violated.
(2)If paid sick days were unlawfully withheld, the dollar amount of paid sick days withheld from the employee multiplied by three, or two hundred fifty dollars ($250), whichever amount is greater, but not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), shall be included in the administrative penalty.
(3)If a violation of this article results in other harm to the employee or person, such as discharge from employment, or otherwise results in a violation of the rights of the employee or person, the administrative penalty shall include a sum of fifty dollars ($50) for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000).
(c)Where prompt compliance by an employer is not forthcoming, the Labor Commissioner may take any appropriate enforcement action to secure compliance, including the filing of a civil action. In compensation to the state for the costs of investigating and remedying the violation, the commissioner may order the violating employer to pay to the state a sum of not more than fifty dollars ($50) for each day or portion of a day a violation occurs or continues for each employee or other person whose rights under this article were violated.
(d)An employee or other person may report to the Labor Commissioner a suspected violation of this article. The commissioner shall encourage reporting pursuant to this subdivision by keeping confidential, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, the name and other identifying information of the employee or person reporting the violation. However, the commissioner may disclose that persons name and identifying information as necessary to enforce this article or for other appropriate purposes, upon the authorization of that person.
(e)The Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the employer or other person violating this article and, upon prevailing, shall be entitled to collect legal or equitable relief on behalf of the aggrieved as may be appropriate to remedy the violation, including reinstatement, backpay, the payment of sick days unlawfully withheld, the payment of an additional sum, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), as liquidated damages in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) to each employee or person whose rights under this article were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, plus, if the employer has unlawfully withheld paid sick days to an employee, the dollar amount of paid sick days withheld from the employee multiplied by three; or two hundred fifty dollars ($250), whichever amount is greater; and reinstatement in employment or injunctive relief; and further shall be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and costs, provided, however, that any person or entity enforcing this article on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law shall, upon prevailing, be entitled only to equitable, injunctive, or restitutionary relief, and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
(f)In an administrative or civil action brought under this article, the Labor Commissioner or court, as the case may be, shall award interest on all amounts due and unpaid at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the Civil Code.
(g)This article shall not be enforced by an action under Part 13 (commencing with Section 2698).
(g)(h)The remedies, penalties, and procedures provided under this article are cumulative.
(h)(i)An employer shall not be assessed any penalty or liquidated damages under this article due to an isolated and unintentional payroll error or written notice error that is a clerical or an inadvertent mistake regarding the accrual or available use of paid sick leave. In reviewing for compliance with this section, the factfinder may consider as a relevant factor whether the employer, prior to an alleged violation, has adopted and is in compliance with a set of policies, procedures, and practices that fully comply with this section.
SEC. 3.The Legislature finds and declares that establishing uniform statewide regulation of certain aspects of paid sick leave is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this act shall apply to all cities and counties, including charter cities and counties.
SECTION 1.Section 2775 of the Labor Code is amended to read:2775.(a)As used in this article:(1)Dynamex means Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903.(2)Borello means the California Supreme Courts decision in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341.(b)(1)For purposes of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the purposes of wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied:(A)The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.(B)The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entitys business.(C)The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any exceptions to the terms employee, employer, employ, or independent contractor, and any extensions of employer status or liability, that are expressly made by a provision of this code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, or in an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, including, but not limited to, the definition of employee in subdivision 2(E) of Wage Order No. 2, shall remain in effect for the purposes set forth therein.(3)If a court rules that the three-part test set forth in paragraph (1) cannot be applied to a particular context based on grounds other than an express exception to employment status as provided under paragraph (2), then the determination of employee or independent contractor status in that context shall instead be governed by the California Supreme Courts decision in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 (Borello).(a)As used in this article:
(1)Dynamex means Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903.
(2)Borello means the California Supreme Courts decision in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341.
(b)(1)For purposes of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the purposes of wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(A)The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
(B)The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entitys business.
(C)The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any exceptions to the terms employee, employer, employ, or independent contractor, and any extensions of employer status or liability, that are expressly made by a provision of this code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, or in an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, including, but not limited to, the definition of employee in subdivision 2(E) of Wage Order No. 2, shall remain in effect for the purposes set forth therein.
(3)If a court of law rules that the three-part test set forth in paragraph (1) cannot be applied to a particular context based on grounds other than an express exception to employment status as provided under paragraph (2), then the determination of employee or independent contractor status in that context shall instead be governed by the California Supreme Courts decision in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 (Borello).
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Feb 1, 2024 | Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56. |
| Apr 20, 2023 | April 19 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 1. Noes 3. Page 834.) Reconsideration granted. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | Set for hearing April 19. |
| Mar 29, 2023 | Re-referred to Coms. on L., P.E. & R. and JUD. |
| Mar 22, 2023 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Mar 1, 2023 | Referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Feb 21, 2023 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 20. |
| Feb 17, 2023 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 19, 2023 | [First] hearing set for [04-20-2023]: Failed passage in Committee. Reconsideration granted | Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement |
Passed |
|
| Apr 19, 2023 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary] | Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement |
Failed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| AARP California | * Against | Apr 19, 2023 |
| Acclamation Insurance Management Services | ** Support | |
| Allied Managed Care | ** Support | |
| American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees | * Against | Apr 19, 2023 |
| Antelope Valley Chambers of Commerce | ** Support | |
| Association of California Caregiver Resource Centers | ** Against | |
| BreastfeedLA | ** Against | |
| California Alliance For Retired Americans | ** Against | |
| California Attractions And Parks Association | * Support | Apr 19, 2023 |
| California Chamber Of Commerce | * Support | Apr 19, 2023 |
| California Child Care Resource and Referral Network | ** Against | |
| California Coalition on Family Caregiving | ** Against | |
| California Conference Board Of The Amalgamated Transit Union | ** Against | |
| California Conference Of Machinists | ** Against | |
| California Employment Lawyer's Association | * Against | Apr 19, 2023 |
| California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO | ** Against | |
| California Labor Federation | * Against | Apr 19, 2023 |
| California Manufacturers Technology Association | * Support | Apr 19, 2023 |
| California New Car Dealers Association | ** Support | |
| California Nurses Association | ** Against | |
| California Restaurant Association | * Support | Apr 19, 2023 |
| California Retailers Association | * Support | Apr 19, 2023 |
| California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation | ** Against | |
| California School Employees Association | ** Against | |
| California Staffing Professionals (Csp) | * Support | Apr 19, 2023 |
| California State Building and Construction Trades Council | * Against | Apr 19, 2023 |
| California State Council of SHRM | ** Support | |
| California State Legislative Board, Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division | ** Against | |
| California Teamsters Public Affairs Council | ** Against | |
| California Travel Association Caltravel | * Support | Apr 19, 2023 |
| California Wic Association | ** Against | |
| California Work and Family Coalition | * Against | Apr 19, 2023 |
| CALSHRM | * Support | Apr 19, 2023 |
| Caring Across Generations | ** Against | |
| Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| Coalition of California Chambers – Orange County | ** Support | |
| Coalition of Small & Disabled Veteran Businesses | ** Support | |
| Communication Workers of America, District 9 | ** Against | |
| Contra Costa Central Labor Council | ** Against | |
| Dana Point Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| Electric Universe | ** Against | |
| Engineers and Scientists of California, IFPTE Local 20, AFL-CIO | ** Against | |
| Family Caregiver Alliance | * Against | Apr 19, 2023 |
| Family Values @ Work | ** Against | |
| Flasher Barricade Association | ** Support | |
| Friends Committee On Legislation Of California | ** Against | |
| Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| Hand in Hand: The Domestic Employers Network | ** Against | |
| hollywood chamber of commerce | ** Support | |
| Housing Contractors Of California | ** Support | |
| Human Impact Partners | ** Against | |
| Imperial Valley Regional Chamber of Commerce | * Support | Apr 19, 2023 |
| LA Canada Flintridge Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| Legal Aid At Work | * Against | Apr 19, 2023 |
| Lighthouse Public Affairs | * Against | Apr 19, 2023 |
| Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO | ** Against | |
| Mission Viejo Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO | ** Against | |
| Napa Solano Central Labor Council | ** Against | |
| NARAL Pro-Choice California | ** Against | |
| Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| North Bay Labor Council | ** Against | |
| North Valley Labor Federation | ** Against | |
| Oceanside Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| Official Police Garage Association Of Los Angeles | ** Support | |
| Orange County Business Council | ** Support | |
| Orange County Labor Federation, AFL-CIO | ** Against | |
| Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber Of Commerce | ** Support | |
| Parent Voices California | ** Against | |
| Public Counsel | ** Against | |
| Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management | ** Support | |
| Restaurant Opportunity Center of the Bay | ** Against | |
| Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| San Diego County Breastfeeding Coalition | ** Against | |
| San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO | ** Against | |
| San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| San Mateo Labor Council, AFL-CIO | ** Against | |
| Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition | ** Against | |
| Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | |
| SMART Transportation Division | * Against | Apr 19, 2023 |
| South Bay Labor Council | ** Against | |
| The Restaurant Opportunity Center of The Bay | ** Against | |
| Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO | ** Against | |
| Ufcw Western States Council | * Against | Apr 19, 2023 |
| Union of American Physicians and Dentists, AFSCME Local 206 | ** Against | |
| UNITE-HERE, AFL-CIO | ** Against | |
| United Nurses Associations Of California/Union Of Health Care Professionals | ** Against | |
| Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO | ** Against | |
| West Ventura County Business Alliance | ** Support | |
| Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce | ** Support |
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT
Senator Dave Cortese, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: SB 881 Hearing Date: April 19, 2023
Author: | Alvarado-Gil | ||
Version: | April 11, 2023 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Alma Perez-Schwab | ||
SUBJECT: Paid sick days: accrual and use
KEY ISSUES
Should the Legislature increase the 24 hours or three days of paid sick leave currently afforded to employees under existing law to 40 hours or 5 days?
Should existing paid sick leave provisions be amended to strike the requirement that this leave be paid the “regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses the time” (for example, overtime that the worker regularly makes), to instead require that the time be “paid at the employee’s base rate of pay”?
Should employers be authorized to request, when an employee uses paid sick leave, that the employee provide a signed written statement stating that they were absent from work for reasons allowed under paid sick leave provisions?
Should employers be authorized to request, when an employee uses paid sick leave for three or more consecutive work days, reasonable written documentation demonstrating that an employee was absent from work for reasons allowed under paid sick leave provisions?
Should employers not be held liable for paid sick leave violations if the employer denies leave based on a determination that the verification or documentation provided by the employee is false?
Should the Legislature prohibit a new county, city or municipality from adopting (or amending) any ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding paid sick leave (other than COVID-19-specific paid sick leave)?
Should employer paid sick leave violations be exempt from enforcement under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)?
ANALYSIS
Existing law:
- Under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, provides, with limited exceptions, that an employee who works in California for 30 or more days within a year from the start of employment is entitled to paid sick days for specified purposes, to be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked, and to be available for use beginning on the 90th day of employment. (Labor Code §246)
- Upon the oral or written request of an employee, requires an employer to provide paid sick days for the following purposes (Labor Code §246.5):
- Diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition of, or preventive care for, an employee or an employee’s family member.
- Recover from physical/mental illness or injury due to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, among others.
- Authorizes an employer to use a different accrual method than providing one hour for every 30 hours worked as long as an employee has no less than 24 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 120th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period. (Labor Code §246(b)(3))
- Provides that an employer may satisfy the accrual requirements by providing not less than 24 hours or three days of paid sick leave that is available to the employee to use by the completion of the employee’s 120th calendar day of employment. (Labor Code §246(b)(4))
- Provides that an employer has no obligation to allow an employee’s total accrual of paid sick leave to exceed 48 hours or six days, provided that an employee’s rights to accrue and use paid sick leave are not otherwise limited, as specified. (Labor Code §246(j))
- Permits carrying over sick leave to the following year of employment, but also allows an employer to limit the use of the carryover amount, in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period, to 24 hours or three days. (Labor Code §246(d))
- Specifies that in-home supportive services providers, as defined, accrue sick leave in accordance with a schedule that is based on the timeline for state minimum wage increases up to a maximum of 24 hours or three days when the minimum wage reaches $15 per hour. (Labor Code §246(e))
- Prohibits an employer from denying an employee the right to use accrued sick days, discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an employee for using or attempting to use accrued sick days (Labor Code §246.5)
- Establishes the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) of 2004, which permits aggrieved employees to a pursue civil action (file lawsuits) to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations.
(Labor Code §2698-2699.8)
This bill:
- Modifies, under the state’s paid sick leave provisions, the right of an employer to use an alternate sick leave accrual method (than one hour for every 30 hours worked) to require that an employee have no less than 40 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 200th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period.
- Provides that an employer may satisfy the paid sick leave accrual requirements by providing not less than 40 hours or five days of paid sick leave that is available to the employee to use by the completion of the employee’s 200th calendar day of employment.
- Specifies that an employer is under no obligation to allow an employee’s total accrual of paid sick leave to exceed 40 hours or five days, provided certain conditions are met.
- Specifies that the term “full amount of leave” means five days or 40 hours.
- Amends the schedule for in-home supportive services providers to increase their sick leave accrual maximum to 40 hours or five days in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period beginning January 1, 2026.
- Raises the employer’s authorized limitation on the employee’s use of carryover sick leave to 80 hours or 10 days.
- Strikes the requirement that the paid sick time be calculated in the same manner as the regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time, whether or not the employee actually works overtime in that week, to instead require the leave be paid at the employee’s base rate of pay.
- Authorizes an employer to request, when an employee uses paid sick leave, that the employee provide a signed written statement stating that the employee was absent from work for reasons specified in paid sick leave provisions.
- If an employee uses paid sick leave on three or more consecutive work days, authorizes an employer to request that an employee provide reasonable written documentation demonstrating that the employee was absent from work for a reason specified in paid sick leave provisions.
- Specifies that an employer shall not be in violation of these provisions if the employer denies leave based on a determination that the verification or documentation provided is false.
- On or after January 1, 2024, prohibits a county, city or municipality from adopting (or amending) any ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding paid sick leave other than related to COVID-19-specific paid sick leave.
- Preempts any existing local ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding earned sick leave, except as specified as follows:
- Local COVID-19 specific sick leave ordinances, including those requiring employers to provide paid sick days in excess of those required in this bill.
- On and after January 1, 2024, an employer who, pursuant to a local ordinance enacted before January 1, 2023, is required to provide sick leave in an amount that exceeds the sick leave requirements in this bill shall provide the amount of sick leave required by that local ordinance.
- Exempts paid sick leave provisions from enforcement under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
COMMENTS
1. Background: Paid Sick Leave and COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave
Federal law does not require employers to provide sick leave and until 2014, California authorized employers to offer it but didn’t require it. AB 1522 (Gonzalez, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2014) enacted the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 to provide employees with paid sick days for prescribed purposes, to be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked. An employee is entitled to use accrued sick days beginning on the 90th day of employment and employers are authorized to limit an employee’s use of paid sick days to 24 hours or 3 days in each year of employment. The bill additionally prohibited an employer from discriminating or retaliating against an employee who requests paid sick days.
Supplemental Paid Sick Leave for COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic was an unexpected test of the value of paid sick days. In response to the limited number of paid sick days available under existing law, and recognition that COVID-19 was a threat that required more than 24 hours to recover or quarantine from, the federal and state governments acted to provide a higher amounts of protected paid sick leave time. At the federal level, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), until December 31, 2020, required certain employers to provide employees with two weeks (up to 80 hours) and up to an additional 10 weeks, as specified, of paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave for specified reasons related to COVID-19.
Through AB 1867 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 45, Statutes of 2020), the state established the COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave and COVID-19 Food Sector Supplemental Paid Sick Leave, which provided 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave for food sector workers for specified COVID-19 related reasons. The bill similarly established COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave for certain persons employed by private businesses of 500 or more employees or persons employed as certain types of health care providers or emergency responders by public or private entities. These provisions were retroactively applied, as specified, and expired on December 31, 2020.
In 2021, SB 95 (Skinner, Chapter 13, Statutes of 2021), reestablished the COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave provisions to provide up to two weeks or 80 hours of paid leave to eligible employees of employers with 25 or more employees with a September 30, 2021 sunset date. The bill specified that employees were entitled to supplemental sick leave due to quarantine or isolation related to COVID-19, attending an appointment or experiencing symptoms related to COVID-19 vaccine, experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, caring for a family member who is subject to quarantine, or caring for a child whose school or place of care is closed due to COVID-19.
In 2022, SB 1114 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review. Chapter 4, Statutes of 2022) again extended the COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave provisions to, until September 30, 2022, provide 40 hours of supplemental paid sick leave for covered employees who are unable to work or telework due to certain reasons related to COVID-19, including that the employee is attending a COVID-19 vaccine or vaccine booster appointment for themselves or a family member, or is experiencing symptoms, or caring for a family member experiencing symptoms, related to a COVID-19 vaccine or vaccine booster. The bill provided a covered employee, in addition to the COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave described above, to take up to 40 more hours of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave if the covered employee, or a family member for whom the covered employee is providing care, tests positive for COVID-19.
Also in 2022, AB 152 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 736, Statutes of 2022) established the California Small Business and Nonprofit COVID-19 Relief Grant Program within GO-Biz to, until January 1, 2024, assist qualified small businesses or nonprofits that are incurring costs for COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. AB 152 also specified that an employer has no obligation to provide additional COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave if the employee refuses to submit to the specified testing, provided by the employer. The bill also extended the COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave provisions from September 30, 2022, to December 31, 2022.
2. Benefits of Paid Sick Days:
Studies have identified low-wage workers as particularly susceptible to having little to no access to paid sick time. As pointed out by the Economic Policy Institute, “while approximately 64 percent of private-sector American workers currently have access to paid sick days, this topline number masks the fact that higher-wage workers have much greater access to paid sick days than lower-wage workers do: for example, 87 percent of private-sector workers in the top 10 percent of wages have the ability to earn paid sick days, compared with only 27 percent of private-sector workers in the bottom 10 percent.”[1] This means that workers with very little disposable income are likely to go to work sick.
These findings are especially troubling considering the impact of leaving illnesses untreated. Access to paid sick leave encourages workers to take time off when they or their family members are ill and need to seek medical care. According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, “Adults and children who have the time and care they need to recover from health problems may use fewer health care resources in the long run. Active parental involvement in children’s hospital care, for instance, can head off future health care needs because of increased parental education and awareness…Conversely, the failure to provide adequate recuperative time and requisite parental care may tend to exacerbate future health needs.” [2]
Most recently with the fight against COVID-19, paid sick leave made a significant difference in controlling the spread of the virus. A recent analysis found that the two week federal emergency paid sick leave program provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) reduced the spread of the virus. In states where workers were able to access the emergency sick leave, there were 400 fewer confirmed new cases per day than prior to implementation of the FFCRA.[3]
3. How California Compares to Other States:
Once leading the nation as the second state to adopt a paid sick leave policy, behind Connecticut in 2011, California now appears to lag behind other states in the number of sick days provided. An April 2023 California Budget & Policy Center publication examined paid sick leave policies throughout the United States and found that New Mexico leads the country by providing 64 hours of leave applicable to employers of all sizes.[4] Additionally, the publication found that:
- Washington: no cap, 1 hour for every 40 hours worked (all employers)
- New Mexico: 64 hours (all employers)
- Colorado: 48 hours (all employers)
- Vermont: 40 hours (all employers)
- New Jersey: 40 hours (all employers)
- New York: 40 hours (100 or less employees) or 56 hours (100 or more employees)
- Oregon: 40 hours (employers with 10+ workers)
- Massachusetts: 40 hours (employers with 11+ workers)
- Arizona: 24 hours (15 or less workers) or 40 hours (15 or more workers)
- Maryland: 40 hours (employers with 15+ workers)
- Rhode Island: 40 hours (employers with 18+ workers)
- Connecticut: 40 hours (employers with 50+ workers)
- Michigan: 40 hours (employers with 50+ workers)
- Washington DC: 3 days (25 or less), 5 days (25-99), 7 days (100+ workers)
- California: 24 hours (all employers)
Additionally, seven cities in California already mandate at least 9-10 days of leave for most workers. The five days required under this bill, will still leave California’s sick leave standards weaker than those of San Diego, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville.
4. Need for this bill?
According to the author, “The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way we view sick leave and whether three days per year is sufficient. As the way we work has changed the state’s leave policy needs to adapt. It has also become clear over the last eight years that the existence of 10 different sick leave laws is a confusing administrative burden and that certain aspects of the Act are having unintended consequences.”
5. Proponent Arguments:
According to a coalition of employer organizations in support of the measure, including the California Chamber of Commerce, this bill is “good for both employees and employers. While it increases paid sick leave from 3 to 5 days, it also addresses a significant number of existing compliance hurdles for employers” They argue the following:
- Local Ordinances: The biggest compliance hurdle for employers is that it allows cities and counties to adopt different sick leave mandates. The proliferation of local ordinances creates inconsistency and confusion for employers that operate in multiple jurisdictions. There are currently nine local ordinances in addition to the Act, which have different rules regarding accrual methods, accrual use caps, use increments, which employees are covered, reasons for using paid sick leave, amount of leave, and the permitted use of documentation. SB 881 addresses this issue by creating one statewide standard.
- Documentation: The Act prohibits employers from ever asking for documentation. Employers have discovered employees using paid sick leave for non-statutory reasons, but there is nothing they can do because otherwise they face an alleged violation for interfering with or discouraging the use of leave. Worse, it often means that employees subsequently come in sick because they have used their sick days for other reasons. SB 881 allows employers to request documentation if a worker is out for three or more consecutive days, which is modeled after multiple existing ordinances, and allows the employer to request the employee sign a document certifying the reason for use of the leave is consistent with the reasons allowed under the statute.
- Rate of Pay: “regular rate” of pay is not necessarily an employee’s normal hourly rate because it must include almost all forms of pay that the employee receives. For example, the following payments are included in the regular rate of pay: hourly earnings, salary, commissions, non-discretionary bonuses, piece work earnings, and the value of meals and lodging. With a lot of uncertainty surrounding this calculation, this requirement can become very confusing for employers. SB 881 would allow leave to be paid at the base rate of pay.
- Enforcement: “While the Act was moving through the legislature, it was the understanding of the employer community that PAGA penalties were not recoverable under the final version of the bill. Courts agreed. See, e.g., Stearne v. Heartland Payment Sys. LLC, 2018 WL 746492 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2018). It was only last month that a California Court of Appeals upended that interpretation, holding that PAGA does apply to paid sick leave claims. This opens up businesses of every size to threats of litigation for significant penalties over any dispute regarding paid sick leave. SB 881 would therefore clarify that PAGA penalties do not apply to paid sick leave claims.”
6. Opponent Arguments:
According to a coalition of worker advocacy organizations, including the California Labor Federation, California has “fallen drastically behind stronger sick days standards adopted in eight local jurisdictions across California, and COVID has made painfully clear the need for workers to be guaranteed more than three paid sick days. That is one reason a broad coalition of labor and worker advocacy groups are co-sponsoring SB 616 (Gonzalez), which will expand our current three-day requirement to seven.” SB 881, they argue, “would reduce the number of sick days for millions of workers in California and otherwise severely weaken our existing statewide sick days law.”
Additionally, regarding the change to the way paid sick would be compensated as proposed in this bill, the coalition notes, “The regular rate of pay calculation includes various other forms of pay that a worker usually receives and is especially important for piece rate workers, who often work very quickly to earn wages significantly higher than minimum wage. SB 881 would undo this precedent and replace the regular rate of pay requirement with an allowance to employers to only pay sick workers what is called their “base rate of pay.” This calculation can be much lower and denies workers the wages they deserve and on which they depend. This pay cut could also present a major disincentive against claiming sick leave, as a worker may see a large enough reduction that using sick leave would simply not be a feasible option.”
Furthermore, they argue, “similar disincentives are again created by two sections that would allow employers to essentially prove the need for sick days. The first, LC 246 (n)(1), would permit employers to require workers to “…provide a written statement signed by the employee stating that the employee was absent from work for a reason specified in subdivision (a) of Section 246.5.” This bizarrely punitive requirement would potentially require workers to research the Labor Code to prepare a written document that could violate privacy, risk their own safety, and easily be used to accuse a worker of misrepresenting their situation, with obvious implications for discipline and job security.
For example, if a worker is using the time for a very personal medical issue, that could be something they very much do not want to detail to their employer. This could dissuade the worker from ever claiming the leave. Or, if the worker decides to still try to use a sick day, they may not include enough detail in the written statement to satisfy the employer and face discipline or termination. Should the worker be terminated, nothing in the bill would prohibit that signed written statement from being used against them during any dispute over unemployment insurance benefits. Certainly, a wide variety of other unintended consequences would result from such an unnecessary and risky requirement.”
Regarding the requirement on documentation, the coalition writes that this, “Presumably, this refers to a note from a health care professional, but the language is unclear. If so, forcing a worker to see a doctor while sick would create significant costs for that worker that could exceed the amount earned via sick leave, strongly discouraging the worker from exercising their rights. If not, this section would create great confusion that would likely just end with the worker feeling extreme pressure to not claim leave and go to work while sick or abandon a sick child or family member who needs care.”
Finally, they argue that this bill would “exempt this entire law from the Private Attorneys General Act. This massive takeaway, not included in AB 1522, would drastically weaken enforcement at a time when workers by all accounts need stronger protection under the law. Even the employer community has recently highlighted struggles workers face in using the administrative process to enforce Labor Code violations; leaving workers with fewer enforcement options at this time is simply indefensible.”
7. Committee Staff Comments:
There is no question that increasing the number of paid sick days available would help workers recover from an illness and take care of their families while also helping California catch up to other states offering comparable amount of days. This proposal increases paid sick days from three to five days, putting us in parity with several other states. However, this bill also proposes to make several changes to paid sick leave provisions which may have unintended consequences and which the committee should consider as the bill is heard.
- Rate of Pay: Paid sick time is currently required to be calculated in the same manner as the regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time, whether or not the employee actually works overtime in that workweek. According to the Department of Industrial Relations, in general terms, this means that time taken off as paid sick leave must be paid at an employee’s regular rate of pay, either for the workweek in which the paid sick leave was taken, or as determined by averaging over a 90-day period. This bill proposes that the paid time be compensated using only the employee's base pay. When an employee regularly works overtime or works on commission, those extra wages become income in which they rely on to take care of themselves and their families. If they happen to get sick and need to take some days off, does it make sense that those days be paid at lower wages than what they would have expected to earn had they not suffered an illness?
- Written Statement of Reasons for the Leave: proponents from the employer community are seeking to address abuse of paid sick leave when used for reasons other than those specified under the Act. As correctly noted, existing law does not require or authorize employers to ask the reason for a worker seeking to take paid sick leave. Employee medical privacy is a fundamental right. How does authorizing an employer to request that an employee provide a signed written statement saying they are absent from work for reasons specified in the paid sick leave provisions protect employee medical privacy rights? And even if the employer isn’t directly asking them to provide their medical diagnosis or illness for which they need to take the day, what precedent does this provision set in what and how much information employees are being asked to share with their employer regarding their personal lives?
- Documentation of Reasons for the Leave: similar medical privacy issues arise with the documentation provisions proposed by the bill. However, staff notes that several local ordinances address documentation. For example, the City of San Francisco Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, specifies that “policies or practices that require a doctor’s note or other documentation for the use of paid sick leave of three or fewer consecutive work days shall be deemed unreasonable. Policies or practices that require a doctor’s note or other documentation for the use of paid sick leave of more than three consecutive work days (whether full or partial days) shall be deemed reasonable.”[5] Their enforcement manual also requires employers to treat all information obtained from employees regarding their use of paid sick leave in a manner that is consistent with applicable federal, state and local privacy laws. This bill says that the employer can “request that an employee provide reasonable written documentation demonstrating that the employee was absent from work for reasons specified in paid sick leave provisions.” Should these provisions be limited to only allow employers to request medical documentation? And if so, given the state of our healthcare system – specifically, staff shortages that have caused delays in getting access to care, is this request appropriate? Committee staff notes personal experience, of someone who is insured and has the means to go see a doctor, in the difficulties of even finding an appointment with a doctor and having to wait almost a week to get a response from a physician.
- False Documentation: the bill specifies that “an employer shall not be in violation of this section if the employer denies leave based on a determination that the verification or documentation provided is false.” Assuming it is the employer making the determination about which documents appear false. Should there be more parameters as to how documents needs to be verified and what is or isn’t an appropriate denial?
- Local Ordinance Preemption: the bill prohibits, on or after January 1, 2024, a county, city or municipality from adopting (or amending) any ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding paid sick leave other than related to COVID-19-specific paid sick leave. Although states can preempt cities from legislating on particular issues either by statutory or constitutional law, is it appropriate to limit a local jurisdiction’s interest in providing better protections for their workers?
8. Double referral:
This bill has been double referred and if approved by this Committee today, will be sent to Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing.
9. Prior Legislation:
SB 616 (Gonzalez, 2023) proposes to increase the amount of paid sick leave employers are required to provide from three to seven days. SB 616 is pending before this Committee at today’s hearing.
AB 152 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 736, Statutes of 2022), discussed above, extended the COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave provisions to December 31, 2022.
SB 1114 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review. Chapter 4, Statutes of 2022), discussed above, extended the COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave provisions until September 30, 2022.
SB 95 (Skinner, Chapter 13, Statutes of 2021), discussed above, reestablished and extended the COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave provisions to September 30, 2021.
AB 995 (Gonzalez, 2021) would have increased the state’s paid sick leave program to provide an employee with no less than 40 hours or five days of sick leave by the 200th calendar day of employment. Died on Assembly inactive file.
AB 1867 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 45, Statutes of 2020), discussed above, established the COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave and COVID-19 Food Sector Supplemental Paid Sick Leave, to, until December 31, 2020, provide 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave for specified workers.
AB 555 (Gonzalez, 2019) would have expanded the state’s paid sick leave program to provide an employee with no less than 40 hours or five days of sick leave by the 200th calendar day of employment. Died on Assembly inactive file.
AB 2841 (Gonzalez, 2018) would have increased paid sick leave to 40 hours by the 200th calendar day of employment. Died on Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
AB 1522 (Gonzalez, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2014) enacted the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 providing 24 hours or three days of paid sick leave.
SUPPORT
Acclamation Insurance Management Services
Allied Managed Care
Antelope Valley Chambers of Commerce
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California New Car Dealers Association
California Retailers Association
California State Council of SHRM
California Travel Association
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce
Coalition of California Chambers – Orange County
Coalition of Small & Disabled Veteran Business
Dana Point Chamber of Commerce
Flasher Barricade Association
Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce
Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
Housing Contractors of California
Imperial Valley Regional Chamber of Commerce
LA Canada Flintridge Chamber of Commerce
Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce
Mission Viejo Chamber of Commerce
Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Official Police Garage Association of Los Angeles
Orange County Business Council
Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management (PRISM)
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce
Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce
Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce
Society for Human Resource Management
West Ventura County Business Alliance
Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce
OPPOSITION
AARP
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees of California
Association of California Caregiver Resource Centers
BreastfeedLA
California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA)
California Child Care Resource and Referral Network
California Coalition on Family Caregiving
California Conference Board of The Amalgamated Transit Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Employment Lawyers Association
California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Nurses Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLA Foundation)
California School Employees Association
California State Legislative Board, Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division (SMART-TD)
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
California WIC Association
California Work & Family Coalition
Caring Across Generations
Communication Workers of America, District 9
Contra Costa Central Labor Council
Electric Universe
Engineers and Scientists of California, IFPTE Local 20, AFL-CIO
Family Caregiver Alliance (FCA)
Family Values @ Work
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Hand in Hand: the Domestic Employers Network
Human Impact Partners
Legal Aid At Work
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO
Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Napa Solano Central Labor Council
NARAL Pro-choice California
North Bay Labor Council
North Valley Labor Federation
Orange County Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
Parent Voices California
Public Counsel
Restaurant Opportunity Center of the Bay
San Diego County Breastfeeding Coalition
San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO
San Mateo Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition
South Bay Labor Council
The Restaurant Opportunity Center of The Bay
Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO
United Food and Commercial Workers - Western States Council
Union of American Physicians and Dentists, AFSCME Local 206
UNITE-HERE, AFL-CIO
United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals
Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO
-- END --
“Work sick or lose pay? The high cost of being sick when you don’t get paid sick days,” Economic Policy Institute, June 28, 2017. ↑
“No Time to be Sick: Why Everyone Suffers When Workers Don’t Have Paid Sick Leave,” Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Publication # B242p, May 2004. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Orbach-Mandel, Hannah. “Inadequate Paid Sick Leave.” April 2023. California Budget & Policy Center. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/california-workers-left-behind-due-to-inadequate-paid-sick-leave/ ↑
City and County of San Francisco, Office of Labor Standards Enforcement. Rules Implementing The San Francisco Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (PSLO). Effective June 7, 2018. https://sf.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/PSLO%20Final%20Rules%2005%2007%202018.pdf ↑
Discussed in Hearing
21MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement
Bill Co-Author(s):