Under existing law, the information obtained in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Code is for the exclusive use and information of the Director of Employment Development in the discharge of the directors duties and is not open to the public. Existing law permits the use of the information for specified purposes, including enabling the California Workforce Development Board and other entities to access any relevant quarterly wage data necessary for the evaluation and reporting of specified workforce program performance outcomes. Existing law makes it a crime for any person to knowingly access, use, or disclose this confidential information without authorization.
This bill would require the Employment Development Department to release an employees
wage information to a qualified third-party vendor if the employee has provided the department written permission for that release. The bill would require the department to allow, at the request of the employee, the electronic transmission of the employees wage information directly to or through a qualified third-party vendor for permissible uses, as defined. The bill would require the department to enter into an agreement with a qualified third-party vendor to allow for electronic transmission of an employees wage information for permissible uses. The bill would require a qualified third-party vendor to use the employees wage information for a permissible use and to share the employees wage information with a subscriber, subject to specified restrictions the bill would impose on the subscriber. The bill would provide that wage information is confidential, as specified.
This bill would prohibit the department from expending any state funds to execute the terms of the agreement with a qualified third-party vendor. The bill would require the department to charge and collect fees from a qualified third-party vendor to cover startup costs and the expenses incurred in the administration of these provisions, as specified. The bill would make any person who knowingly accesses, uses, or discloses any information made confidential by the bills provisions without authorization, as provided, guilty of a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would define various terms for purposes of these provisions.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law authorizes a party or attorney in an action or proceeding to move to disqualify a judge, court commissioner, or referee for prejudice against a party or attorney or the interest of a party or attorney, as specified. Prejudice may be established by an oral or written motion without notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, or an oral statement under oath, that the judge, court commissioner, or referee is prejudiced against a party or attorney, or the interest of the party or attorney, so that the party or attorney cannot, or believes that they cannot, have a fair and impartial trial or hearing. Existing law requires, in specified circumstances, the Chair of the Judicial Council to assign some other judge, court commissioner, or referee to try the cause or hear the matter as promptly as possible.This bill
would extend these provisions to authorize a party or attorney to disqualify a justice or justices of an appellate court for prejudice against a party or attorney, or the interest of a party or attorney, as specified. The bill would make related findings and declarations.This bill would require, following reversal by the California Supreme Court and remand to a court of appeal for further proceedings, other than of a ministerial nature, the presiding justice of the court of appeal to assign the case to a panel of three justices and to notify the parties of the assignment within 30 days of issuance of the remittitur to the court of appeal. The bill would authorize a motion directed to one or more justices of a court of appeal to only be made following reversal by the California Supreme Court of a court of appeals decision, where the court of appeal is required to conduct further proceedings other than of a ministerial nature, and may only be directed to the justice
or justices who authored or concurred in the prior decision and who is or are assigned to further consider the matter. The bill would authorize the party who obtained the reversal to make that motion regardless of whether that party or side has previously done so. The bill would require, for cases reversed on or after January 1, 2026, the motion to be made within 15 days after the party or the partys attorney has been notified of the assignment. The bill would require, for cases reversed before January 1, 2026, and remaining pending as of the effective date of this act, the motion to be made on or before January 16, 2026. The bill would authorize, upon presentation of a motion directed to one or more justices of a court of appeal, the presiding justice to, at the presiding justices discretion, assign up to 3 new justices regardless of the number of justices to whom the motion is directed.This bill would require, if the motion is duly presented and the affidavit
or declaration under penalty of perjury is duly filed or an oral statement under oath is duly made, that the presiding justice assign other justice or justices or transfer the case to another panel of justices. The bill would also require, in specified circumstances, the Chair of the Judicial Council to assign some other justice or justices to hear the matter as promptly as possible.The bill would make the above provisions operative from January 1, 2026, until January 1, 2031.The bill would require the California Law Revision Commission to deliver, on or before September 30, 2028, a study regarding the recusal of judicial officers for prejudice and conflict of interest, as specified. The bill would require the California Law Revision Commission to consult with the Commission on Judicial Performance in developing the study.This bill would make these provisions
inoperative on September 30, 2031, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2032.