Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

I'll start. Well, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In order for us to complete our agenda and allow everyone equal time, the rules for witness testimony other each side will be allowed two main witnesses. Each witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the Bill.

Additional witnesses should state only their names, organization, if any, and their position on the Bill.

As we proceed with witness and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the Committee has rules to ensure a fair and efficient hearing in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time. The rules for today's hearings include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time as mentioned, and comments on any other issues. When doing those me toos will be rolled out of order and the microphone may be disconnected. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal from the hearing or other enforcement processes which we do not have a quorum. However, we will go ahead and begin as a Subcommitee and I'm going to go ahead and present a judicial Judiciary Committee Bill or omnibus Bill.

Are you getting the timer ready for me? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Assembly Bill 1521 is the Judiciary Committee civil law omnibus Bill. This Bill contains numerous minor updates to various code sections within the jurisdiction of this Committee, thus saving us from hearing at least a dozen other bills.

Among the provisions of this Bill, it repeals obsolete provisions of the government code which have been held to be unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. It authorizes juvenile courts to hear petitions to establish a record of birth, death or marriage in order to streamline court proceedings.

It requires notice of probate petitions to be provided to the California Department of Child Support Services to facilitate recovery of past due child support and fixes numerous typos in existing law. Again, all the changes in the Bill are fairly minor and generally clarifying in nature.

The Bill has no opposition and when we have a quorum, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Are there any wizards? Are there any witnesses? And is there anyone here that would like to testify in support of the omnibusville? Anyone in opposition? Okay, that's it.

Thank you, Senator Zbur. I think that counts as presenting like 12 bills, right? We're already 12 in. And then we will move on to.

Are you gonna do that? Are you gonna do the other omnibus. 0 Judiciary one. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

All right. We will continue to proceed as a Subcommitee and I would like to ask sub Member McKinnor AB57 to go ahead and whenever she's ready to get situated and present the Bill.

I was running a little bit. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 57 seeks to address historic and systemic inequities in home ownership by reserving a portion of funding within the California's Home Purchase Assistance Program specifically for the descendants of formerly enslaved people.

The legacy of slavery and the long history of discriminatory housing policies such as redlining, racial covenants and exclusionary lending practices have resulted in deep and persistent racial disparities in home ownership. Today, the home ownership rate for descendants of formerly enslaved people remains nearly 30% points lower than that of white households.

It is important to note that AB57 identifies future beneficiaries based on a legal status, not race. Descendants of formerly enslaved people can look like anyone in this room. I don't know if you guys ever had a chance to follow me on social media, but I have a beautiful little grandson. He has very, very light skin.

And so I think that as we go through this process, you will find that the descendants US slaves looks like a lot of us in this room. Senator Weber Pierson and the legislative backed caucus is working closely this year on separate legislation that will create a legal process to identify descendants of formerly enslaved people.

And we are confident that AB57 works in concert with Senator Weber Pierson's legislation to repair generations of harm imposed on this resilient population of Californians. AB57 is not only a response to historical injustice, it is an investment in California's economic future. Expanding home ownership builds generational wealth, stabilizes community and strengthens our broader economy.

With me today to testify in support of this bill is Tennessee Herring from the California Hawaii State Conference. NAACP, thank you. Thank you.

Good morning chair and Committee Members. My name is Tennessee Herring and I have the pleasure of serving the State Conference of California and Hawaii, NAACP. Assembly Bill 57 has our overwhelming support as it aims to address historical disparities in home ownership.

By allocating at least 10% of California's home Purchase Assistance Program funds to applicants who are descendants of a formerly enslaved people.

By specifically allocating funds to descendants of formerly enslaved individuals, AB57 acknowledges and seeks to rectify the systemic barriers that have historically, historically prevented said descendants from accessing home ownership opportunities, California has an opportunity to lead in repairing past wrongs by implementing policies that advance equity.

AB57 is a direct response to the calls for justice and fairness and economic opportunity. Homeownership is a key driver of wealth accumulation. This Bill facilitates economic empowerment by contributing to closing the wealth gap. Increased homeownership translate into more local investment, higher tax revenues and economic benefits for neighborhoods.

This bill is a step towards reparative justice, recognizing the lasting economic impacts of slavery, segregation and discriminatory housing policies that have hindered home ownership for generations. Direct homeownership assistance is a tangible and meaningful way to begin addressing these harms. Opponents may argue that offering targeted assistance is unfair, claiming that all homeowners should be treated equally.

However, this argument ignores the fact that housing policies were intentionally designed to exclude families of descendants of formerly enslaved people from home ownership opportunities. Policies like redlining, restrictive covenants, and discriminatory lending were not about equality. They ensured that true equality was never an option to begin with.

The deep disparities in home ownership today are a direct result of these policies. The historical denial, and I'm sorry, the historical denial of equality, in addition to its residual effects, have led to Today's call for equity. 8057 is a targeted, direct and corrective response to that call. And with that, I ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB57?

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and support. Thank you.

Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kristen Ners with the California Black Power Network and the Alliance Reparations, Reconciliation and Truth in support. Thank you.

Morning, Chair and Members Debray Sanders with Catalyst California, as well as the Alliance for Reparation, Reconciliation and Truth and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 57?

Good morning, Chairman Kalra, Honorable Members of the Committee. Assemblywoman, thank you for your time. My name is Andrew Quino. I'm an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation. Pacific Legal foundation is the nation's leading public interest law firm that advocates for equality and opportunity for all individual liberty when threatened by government overreach and abuse.

AB57 remains unconstitutional because it is still not race neutral. Although it sets aside 10% of funds based on lineage and ancestry, specifically descendants of formerly enslaved people. That is a category that is still closely intertwined with race, such that the purpose and operation of the preference for or based on lineage would provide a racial preference.

As you know, the bill arises from the recommendations of the California Reparations Task Force, which was assembled to review and recommend reparations proposals specifically for African Americans in California. It was not assembled to review and recommend proposals for any individual, regardless of race, who may have faced discrimination.

Now, to the extent that AB57 is meant to address and repair discriminatory housing policies like redlining, AB57 doesn't do that because the basis of the category for the set aside of 10% of the funds is not based on injury, not based on whether an individual faced housing discrimination or redlining. It is based again on race and ancestry.

So there are simple fixes to this bill to make it constitutional and to make it address actual injury from housing discrimination. Make the category not based on lineage and ancestry, state that funds would be set aside without regard to race and ethnicity or lineage, and then base the category again on injury, not identity.

Those are simple fixes that would make AB57 race neutral and constitutional.

Thank you. Hello. Good morning everyone. My name is Frank Hsu. I'm the President of Californians for Equal Rights Foundation. I'm here to speak against AB57. If passed, this bill would violate California's Constitution, principle of equal treatment, the U.S.

constitution and federal anti discrimination laws by giving preferential treatment to descendants of formerly enslaved people in a home purchase assistance program. While AB57 does not explicitly mention race, lineage from American chattel, slavery is unambiguously employed as a race proxy. Just as the Assembly woman said, the purpose to fix redlining, it has a target race on her mind.

The fact that AB 57 is one of the 16 priority bills introduced by the California Legislative Black Caucus in its road to repair 2025 priority bill package corroborates its race based intent. In 1996, over 55% of California voters approved Prop 209 which which defends the equality for all Californians.

In 2020, a bigger, more racially and politically diverse electorate defended Prop. 209 by rejecting Prop 16 in a bigger margin 57.2%. Last year, ACA 7 was stopped in the State Senate whenever given the opportunity. Californians of all backgrounds and sensible lawmakers from both sides reject racial spoils and group based identity politics.

Not to mention, California joined the union as a free state. The state should help those in need of housing assistance on the basis of individual need, not group identity and in a legal manner.

Last year we filed a lawsuit against the San Diego Housing Commission to stop its unconstitutional first time homebuyer program that was only open to potential home buyers of certain races and ethnicities. The taste was settled in our favor. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB57? All right, we'll bring it back to the dais. It looks like if we before we continue if we can establish quorum. And I would like to thank our newest Member, Assembly Member Macedo, for joining us this morning and for a lot of other early mornings to come.

[Roll Call]

Right. We do have a quorum. Any questions or comments or motions? Assembly Member Zbur?

Yes, I'll move the bill. I have complete confidence in this author to navigate the legal issues around this bill and make sure that we're coming up with something that meets legal merit. And I think the goals of the bills are righteous and just want to thank you for bringing it and we'll be supporting it today.

Thank you. And we have a second. Any other questions or comments? I also want to join in thanking the author. Look, the reality is that, first of all, we understand that not every person who's black is a descendant of African slavery. That's part of what I know.

The larger mission of some of the goals of the Reparations Commission and the work of our legislative black colleagues is going to determine through policy to require specific injury or based on injury over identity, when identity was specifically used to create injury over really centuries and generations.

I think is really what the question is here is that do we even to this day, my family came here also Asian American, the opposition witnesses.

In 1978, as immigrants, the moment we stepped on the soil here in California, we had advantages over descendants of African slavery based upon what has very clearly been shown over many, many decades. The data is clear beyond the anecdotes that we have created systemic bias in all of our systems, certainly as it applies to property rights.

Many generations of generational wealth have been denied our black brothers and sisters. When we talk about this being racially biased, we have to remember that we're talking about a class of our populace. Again, not every black person that's here. We're talking about those that have been injured by virtue of being descendants of African slavery.

The data is very clear. I certainly suggest anyone that hasn't to read the Commission report. But even beyond that, I think that there is volumes and volumes of studies that show that the disadvantages carried over over generations in our healthcare system, in property rights, in our criminal justice system, in our economic system.

And so we can decide that we don't want to do anything about it or we can decide that we want to do something about that. Finally, after generations, will it be tested in the courts? Absolutely. But you Know what? Jim Crow was also tested in the courts and eventually overturned.

And so I'm willing to bet on my colleagues, including Assembly Mckinnon and other colleagues in the Legislative Black Caucus, to take on this fight and hopefully to win this fight. Because we all owe a great debt to descendants of African slavery. This country wouldn't be a superpower without it.

This country would not have risen to become an economic giant globally without it. And to this day, descendants of African slavery still face discrimination in every realm of our society. And so if there's an interest in finding equality, fight for that equality. That's what I believe and that's why I'm fully in support of this bill.

Would be honored to be added as a co author. Would you like to close?

Yes. I would like to thank my colleagues this morning. And just to talk to my. These two gentlemen, I would recommend that you guys, if you ever have an opportunity to go to D.C. and visit the African American Museum. It is a. It's full of a wealth of education.

African American, not US Descendants of slaves, after they were freed, they were able to go and build their own towns. They went around this country and they built their own town. But as soon as they built their own towns on their own, we had folks that came in and burned those towns down time after time after time.

So when we talk about harm, there was so much harm done to descendants of U.S. slaves. And it is not a race. This is what everybody in California is going to have to get used to. Because as I talk about my grandson, my grandson looks a lot like Assembly Member Dixon.

And he is definitely a US Descendant of slavery. And so the US Descendants of slavery is going to look like all of us in this room. But I'm proud today to carry this bill and I'm proud to make sure that the harms that were done to us descendants of slaves get corrected.

And today I thank all of you and ask for your Aye vote.

And will you be accepting the amendments?

Yes.

Well. And I know that you're. Your grandson's acute, so it's a high compliment to the Vice Chair. Would you like to please take roll call on the vote?

Motions due. Passes amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

I place. We'll place that bill on call. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I think we actually have.

We have item four. AB 495. AssemblyMember, Rodriguez. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I am pleased to present AB 495, the family preparedness Plan Act. Families across the state and nation are facing the terrifying possibility of separation due to the promises of mass deportation by the current Presidential Administration.

California is home to 10.6 million immigrants, and at least 1 million children in our state have one immigrant parent. Deportations may come without warning and a child might come home from school or an activity to find their parent, caregiver, sibling or entire family is gone. A parent may not show up to pick up their child from daycare.

Separation from parents is traumatic and creates toxic stress in children and adolescents that can profoundly impact their development. Because we know that possible separation weighs heavily on many families in California, it's critical that our families have the tools to plan for and arrange supportive and stable caregiving in the event that they are separated.

AB 495 is a comprehensive approach in providing increased agency and decisions regarding family preparedness addressing this acute threat to family stability, including requiring schools to implement the Attorney General's updated immigration related policies to ensure family preparedness with up to date primary and secondary contact information standardizing recognition of caregiver authorization affidavits so schools and agencies honor them consistently expanding the categories of caregivers eligible to use a caregiver authorization affidavit in recognition of families, diverse kinship and community networks and clarifying that a parent's choice for who should serve as their children's guardian be given due weight, and creating a new joint guardianship process allowing parents facing immigration related separations to designate short term guardians while preserving their - can't do it.

It's too early, it's 8am guys while preserving their parental rights. Current law provides some caregiving arrangement options including the Caregiver Authorization Affidavit, guardianship nominations and General guardianship. While families can use caregiver authorization affidavits, these tools lack clarity and are inconsistently recognized by schools, doctors and agencies.

AB 495 clarifies that a parent signature and a court seal are not required to promote a more uniform acceptance.

This Bill also proposes to allow non-relative extended family Members those individuals who have an established familial or mentoring relationship with the child, such as a godparent, a teacher, neighbor, or those who can use the care - as those who can use caregiver authorization affidavits. Caregiving arrangements with a non-relative extended family Member maintain connection with the child's community.

Such arrangements are important because they provide a stable, familiar and supportive environment for children who cannot remain in the care of their own parent while maintaining connections to their extended family and cultural background which can improve well being and education outcomes.

Supporting a child to live with a known and trusted non-relative extended family Member can minimize the trauma associated with being in one of these arrangements. Additionally, an undocumented parent may not have a blood relative in the US and to care for their child in the event of a separation.

Adding non-relative extended family Members to the caregiver authorization affidavit, will enable a trusted caregiver to make medical decisions for the child as well.

This Bill requires the court to give due weight to the parents nomination and guardianship cases to promote family decision making and provide parents more agency in who they want to care for their children in case they're not able to do so themselves.

Existing guardianship options require a request to suspend a parent's rights and to do not sufficiently protect the rights of immigrant parents who want to maintain involvement in decision making while facing immigration related separations.

I'm proposing a new short term guardianship that does not suspend parental rights, allowing parents facing immigration related separations to maintain their involvement in these decision making moments regarding the care of their child.

This critical legislation establishes streamlined, legally recognized caregiving arrangements to ensure that children can remain with trusted caregivers during times of crisis and provides parents with some agency in their caregiving arrangements in the event of these aggressive immigration enforcement actions. I'm honored that AB 495 has been selected as a Women's Caucus Legislative priority and a Progressive Caucus priority.

And today I have Sharon Balmer Cartagena. I'm messing up everything up this morning. With Public Counsel and Kristen Power with the alliance for Children's Rights. The Bill co-sponsors to provide witness testimonies and support of AB 495.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Sharon Cartagena, Directing Attorney of the Child Youth and Family Advocacy Project at Public Council, and a proud co-sponsor of AB 495 at public council. My team and I work with many families who are experiencing or have experienced separations.

Our Guardianship team operates a Walk in Courthouse Clinic in downtown Los Angeles, assisting over 80% of all litigants who are navigating the probate Guardianship system in Los Angeles County. Our preventive legal advocacy program helps parents both plan for possible separation and navigate reunification.

As part of that program, I recently began to represent a mother who had made a plan for her child when she was detained by ICE. She agreed that a family friend could temporarily care for her child while her immigration case was pending.

When my client was able to return to Los Angeles despite it only being four months later, the family friend would not return her child to her and the court would not dissolve the temporary guardianship.

I will stand with this mother and fight, but I expect it will be a long fight with a continued separation of mother and young child. And I expect this because this is not the first case like this that I have litigated.

Starting several months after the horrific separations at the border that we saw in 2018, I began getting calls from parents, mostly mothers, who were struggling to reunify with children who were forcibly taken from them at the border or who they left behind after being deported.

In all of these cases, a probate guardianship had been granted over their child and the parents did not understand why it was not being lifted now that they were back and ready to care for their child.

In one case, it took over a year to dissolve the guardianship, despite all parties, including the teenage child and the teenage child's attorney, being in agreement that it was best for the child to return to her mom.

In California, we do not have nuanced tools that exist in many other states that allow parents to plan for the temporary care of their children.

You can go ahead and finish it.

in California in most cases a parent's rights are suspended while a caregiver applies for a temporary guardianship, and it can be very hard for parents to regain custody even even when all parties agree and there are no concerns of a parent's fitness.

AB 495 creates a middle ground by extending the situations where a parent can share custody of a non parent so parents can stay involved with their children even when they are not physically present and can be confident that they should be able to reunify with their children upon their return.

Obviously, absent any concerns of unfitness, this ensures parents have agencies to make plans for their family without risking a prolonged unnecessary separation. With this, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Kristin Power, Vice President, Policy and Advocacy with the Alliance for Children's Rights, and is co-sponsor of AB 495.

Our guardianship and Children's court advocacy programs help eliminate barriers and provide free legal services to caregivers seeking legal guardianship in probate court and to individuals who are not entitled to court appointed counsel and dependency cases.

Every day we see how family separation disrupts children's lives, cost causing emotional trauma, instability and barriers to education, health care, and long term well being. Although legal tools give caregivers authority to make decisions for children during a parent's absence, many caregivers still face barriers and challenges while trying to use them.

For example, our attorneys recently assisted a caregiver who is struggling to obtain medical services for the young person in her care despite having completed a caregiver authorization affidavit as required by law. The caregiver filled out the affidavit for her nephew Gabriel after her sister became unable to care for him.

The medical services provider refused to accept the affidavit and instead requested the parents authorization or proof of guardianship, delaying medical care for Gabriel. Her attorneys intervened to ensure compliance and to confirm Gabriel received the medical care he desperately needed.

AB 495 helps ensure schools and medical services providers accept the existing tools by standardizing recognition of the caregiver authorization affidavits, so they're honored consistently among other legal consistencies and priorities. This Bill helps prevent unnecessary trauma for children, strengthens family stability, and ensures that schools and agencies are equipped to support the children and families in times of crisis.

We very much appreciate the work of the Committee to streamline the language and help us ensure clarity and transparency. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 495?

[Roll Call]

Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 495? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments or motions. Chavez Zbur.

I'd love to move the Bill, and would love to be at it as a coauthor if that would be welcome.

You know, I wish that this kind of Bill wasn't necessary, but the sad truth is with the horrendous migration policies that are being pursued by our Federal Government which are ripping children away from their parents, that we actually, unfortunately in California need to be planning ahead for how these innocent kids, all kids are innocent and the families are innocent frankly, can be cared for in a way that cares for their livelihood.

And this Bill is one that is. We often don't think of the legal hurdles that people have to face in order to obtain very, very basic services that are necessary for Healthcare and one's livelihood and also reunification hopefully, if that happens. So I think this is a wonderful Bill. It's a Bill that is needed more than ever.

And obviously I hope that even those who support the, what I believe are very cruel immigration policies of this federal Administration have a heart for these kids and will support this Bill. So thank you.

Anyone else? Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's very sad. The situation actually has been going on for many years, even the prior Administration. So I don't want to inject politics into this. Could you clarify for me if the designated caregiver guardian is not a family Member, what is the assurance that that non family Member is a good person?

I mean, is qualified to care for a child and not subject to some of the horrors we hear of trafficking of children. How do we ascertain that person has the best interest of the child?

Thank you for the question. So like with relative caregivers, there is no vetting. However, to use a caregiver's affidavit, you would be using it to get to be in contact with a mandated reporter.

So by executing it and using the caregiver's affidavit, a non relative extended family Member would be in contact with somebody who is required to report signs of child abuse or neglect to authorities so that they are able to investigate and make sure that children are in safe environments.

Suppose that person disappears with the child. I mean, I would. There are those kinds of people out there, you know probably better than I. So they get custody, obtain custody of a child and they're lost to the millions of people. How do you protect that child? That's my main concern. I understand the intent.

I'm supportive of the intent. I'm concerned about the guardrails and the protection for the children.

I appreciate that you're interested in protecting these children. I think that's exactly what this is. It's giving parents the opportunity, the education and the tools to designate who will care for their child.

As an example, when some of us baptize our children, we select godparents who we might choose to be that non-relative caregiver in the event of us being if we were to be taken. That's an example of a caregiver, like a non-relative caregiver, a godparent, or whomever a parent selects.

Otherwise it's someone that the parent doesn't know or doesn't select. And I'll give you even to your point that this has been happening over the years. My own father, who is an immigrant from Mexico came with his grandmother.

He was five years old, the same age as my daughter, who happens to be with me today, when they took his grandmother, put her in the back of a van, and left him on the porch of a neighbor's house alone while he cried himself to sleep. That is the impetus of this Bill for me personally.

And then I watched as my entire community, in the midst of the fire and windstorms in January, when immigration enforcement was happening in Central Valley. The fear that unfortunately we use the phrase, spread like wildfire, but it's very true.

People who no longer had power or supplies, who wanted to go to our local Costco and Pacoima, couldn't because there was a truck there that said homeland Security, and they were scared of immigration enforcement. We can't let families live in fear.

This helps prepare them to at least make a plan in the event that they're taken and their children is left alone, because they should be able to select who cares for their babies.

Well, I appreciate that, and that's my concern. I think there's a lot of nefarious people involved with little children, and I hear the other side from the justice system. I just want to be sure these children are protected.

I agree, which is why they shouldn't be left alone without anyone designated to care for them.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

AssemblyMember, Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author for this Bill. I would love to second and also be a co-author and just echo a lot of the sentiments from my colleague, Mr. Zbur.

These are terrible, inhumane times, and I think we need measures like this to protect children, protect families, and I'm proud to support it. So thank you for bringing it.

Thank you.

All right, AssemblyMember, Connolly.

Yeah. Please add me as a co-author as well.

Thank you so much.

Yes, add me as co-author as well. And I really appreciate you bringing this forward. It's a new type of way we have to look at things. Unfortunately, right now, as mentioned, under probate, guardianship, that's really used for minors when it's typically necessary.

When a child's parents are unable or unwilling to provide care or guidance, these parents are the exact opposite of that. They're more than willing to provide care. They're actually so responsible that they're thinking about what's going to happen if they get taken away. And someone that they.

That they know and a family friend, whoever it is, a neighbor that knows the child that they know and they trust can take care of their loved one.

Until they're able to get their loved one back as opposed to, as mentioned, they go into probate, guardianship, they don't get their child back or go to some stranger under guardianship that they don't even know.

And so I think that this is a pathway, towards a different kind of way of looking at things because we're somewhat forced to in order to ensure that if parents are suddenly taken away that to your point, AssemblyMember and thank you for your very personal anecdote that the child is just not left by themselves or taken away and not given back to the parent.

When the parent comes back, the parent that clearly cares about them and is thinking about them comes back and has the ability to take care of them and the courts don't give the child back is a nightmare scenario that we want to stop. And so with that, would you like to close. Sorry, Senator Stefani.

Thank you Chair. I would just love to be added as a co author as well. And I'm glad this is a priority Bill for the Women's Caucus and I'm sorry to hear about your story and this is a Bill in the right direction. So thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

This is an opportunity for us to provide education and tools to support families from being separated. And I'm super grateful for everyone who has added their name as a co-author and I'd be very grateful for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Motions do pass to Human Services. Kalra, aye. Kalra, aye. Dixon. Bryan. Connolly, aye. Connolly, aye. Harabedian, aye. Harabedian, aye. Macedo. Pacheco, aye. Pacheco, aye. Lee. Sanchez. Stefani, aye. Stefani, aye. Zbur, aye. Zbur, aye.

Okay, that'll be placed on call. Needs one more vote. Thank you. So we'll have our Vice Chair head up for AB 392.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 392. First, I want to thank the Chair and Committee Staff for working with me and my office on amendments for AB 392, and I am pleased to accept the amendments.

I believe the collaboration between our offices show that this is a bipartisan issue and importantly, a bipartisan solution. AB 392 tackles the nonconsensual sharing of sexually explicit—explicit media—and sexually explicit content of minors to a pornographic site. Let me explain.

Fundamentally, this Bill is about protecting minors and ensuring consent. In our hyper technological age, it is extremely easy for individuals to upload nonconsensual sexually explicit materials online. Every single person here has a smartphone capable of uploading, sharing, and saving such content.

One in 12 people is a victim of image-based sexual abuse and anyone can become the next victim. Once sexually explicit media is uploaded online, it is nearly impossible to remove it.

The Legislature has passed a number of worthwhile measures to provide protections for minors and victims who have had their sexually explicit content either recorded or shared online, without their consent. However, a core issue which has not been addressed is the identification of the uploader and holding websites, which host such media, accountable.

Therefore, to address these issues and protect Californians, AB 392 does four things. First, consent is defined in three parts—1. That an individual consented to being recorded, 2. That an individual consented to the sexually explicit material being uploaded online, and 3. That the individual was not a minor, as minors cannot consent.

Second, this Bill would require that, before adult content or media is uploaded, the uploader must sign a statement, under penalty of perjury, that each person in the media was not a minor, that the individual consented to the media being recorded, and that the individual consented to the content being put online.

This component will address a key issue, by taking steps to prevent media from being uploaded in the first place. This is crucial, as once content is online, as I said, it's extremely difficult to remove it.

Third, AB 392 requires that if an operator receives a complaint that the individual within the media was a minor, or did not consent to the content being recorded or uploaded, then the operator must remove the video within 48 hours.

And finally, this Bill allows an individual, who did not give consent or who was a minor at the time of recording of sexually explicit content, to bring civil action against the operator of the pornographic Internet website and the user who uploaded the content. We need to hold these platforms and those uploaders accountable.

I have with me today, Uldouz Wallace, who will be speaking in support of AB 392. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Uldouz Wallace. I'm an actress, activist, and survivor of the 2014 iCloud hack leak. My private photos and a video were stolen, leaked, and spread across the Internet, and it destroyed my life. I spent over $1 million of my earnings trying to remove nonconsensual content with zero support, not from family, friends, or nonprofits.

Everyone watched me drown and instead of handing me a rope, they just pushed my head down even further. When I was younger, I wasn't considered beautiful. But when I got older, suddenly people said I was. And apparently that meant that I deserved to be exploited. Just existing made people want to destroy me.

And this is happening to women everywhere. No matter how good we are, how many rules we follow, it's never enough, and we're tired. But what's happening to children is even more horrific. They're violating babies and toddlers and uploading those videos to adult sites.

Parents are left to find the abuse of their own children online and relive that trauma, just to try to get it taken down. Survivors live with that trauma and pain every single day, like it just happened all over again. Men are suffering in silence, too. Many I've spoken to carry the shame of their exploitation alone.

That kind of silence is ending lives and current laws allows this kind of abuse to be uploaded. Now, what kind of sick laws allows this kind of abuse to be uploaded in the first place? And the biggest disappointment has been the nonprofits.

I expected adult sites to be complicit, but not the organizations that claim to help. They re-exploit survivors, collect donations off of our stories, and then do nothing. I came from the entertainment industry, but the nonprofit world made Hollywood look kind.

And now with AI, nonconsensual content is being created from a single photo from your social media. No one is safe and anyone can become the next victim. That's why we need the PROTECT Act. It's the only Bill that blocks nonconsensual content before it gets uploaded to adult sites.

It requires age and consent verification, so children, women, and men are protected before the damage is done. The adult sites already have this technology. They're just not required by law to use it. I have over 10 million followers.

But the last hearing, when the PROTECT Act passed unanimously, it was the first time in my whole life that I truly felt heard and seen. And that's all survivors want. To be seen, to be heard, and to be protected. No more placeholder bills. No more performative activism. Pass the PROTECT act now.

It's common sense and it's long overdue. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 392? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 392? We'll bring it back to the dais, any questions? Assembly Member Zbur.

So, thank you for bringing the Bill today. I'll be supporting it. I did have a question, though, about some of the details about implementation, that the Free Speech Coalition was asking for. Have you worked with them to try to?

A lot of those just seemed reasonable mechanisms to make sure that this just wasn't fluff, but in fact is actually manageable and workable.

And there was an amendment. I did not, well, I did not know any of this until I've gotten involved in this, but we've allowed for those sites that are—that might have borderline pornographic images. So, there are 30, and we measure it by content, so, up to 30% of their content.

So, it's sites that are 60% content that are pornographic. So, not to confuse the right to post images, but there is a line that's essentially being understood.

Yeah, no, what I was looking at was really more just the mechanics.

Yes. Oh, absolutely.

That it can be complied with.

Yeah.

You know, how do you, you know, versus how exactly does it depict an individual request that the content be taken down? How do the platforms require, you know, how—how does this work, so that it's not just a—so that someone who's being depicted knows exactly what they need to do to?

Well, there will be those mechanics built into that. And most importantly, so the victim has a voice.

No, I get the purpose of that.

I can answer that.

Sorry. There's a technology called the fingerprint stamp technology. So, when a survivor victim reaches out to platforms, they tell people, this is the image or these are the images or videos that I'm being, you know, shared non-consensually with, right?

And then, they implement it in their system that has this technology. It scans the video or the image ahead of times and basically blocks it from further re-uploading. So, that's how this technology works. That's the fingerprint stamp technology system.

I get that.

Yeah.

But I guess what I'm saying is, if you would read the Free Speech Coalition letter, they have a number of very specific things that I think would be good for you to consider to put in the Bill, so that if someone who is being depicted understands how to get this whole process started.

Well, that's very good. Yeah.

So, I'm hoping you'll work with that, to consider in their letter, so that the Bill could be fleshed out. And I think this will just make it easier for victims to take advantage of the Bill.

Perfect. I agree. I will.

Yeah, I think we can probably get there. I think with your work with the opposition, I think there's some details, but I think the underlying theme of your Bill, I think we all agree with what you're doing and appreciate it. Assemblymember Stefani.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to thank the witness for your activism and your bravery and sharing your story today. The prosecutor in me loves this Bill. So, I will be supporting it.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion and a second? Okay. We have a motion from Assemblymember Stefani, seconded by Assemblymember Zbur. Yes, Madam Vice Chair, I want to thank you for bringing this forward.

It's a very difficult subject matter to have to delve into, but the reality is that we do have people that need protection out there. And I appreciate you for leading that charge. Would you like to close?

Well, thank you. I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll place that on call. I'm gonna go ahead and present Item 5, AB 692.

Thank you. It's item five, AB 692. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. AB 692 will end the exploitative practice of employers trapping workers into debt agreements which oftentimes are disguised as basic on-the-job training, orientation, equipment, loans or other educational programs.

These types of contracts are known as stay or pay or debt traps which are usually hidden in employment contracts or onboarding paperwork, locking workers into their jobs and holding a debt over them regardless of whether they choose to leave, are fired or are laid off.

Debt traps are especially prominent in the transportation, health care, retail, aviation and tech industries. Under current law, workers are protected from being forced to pay for employer mandated training. If they do, then the employer must reimburse the worker for any costs associated with the required training.

In 2023, the Attorney General issued a legal alert to remind employers that employer-driven debt agreements violate California labor law. However, despite existing law and the AG's warnings, employers are still passing on the cost of job related training to their workers who feel blindsided and trapped when they learn about the debt.

Threatening workers with financial ruin is not how they should be treated and should not be used as a method to retain workers. Stay or pay contracts have a chilling effect on the workplace, discouraging workers from speaking out against unsafe or unfair working conditions for fear of being fired and forced to pay off the debt.

AB 692 will prohibit employer debt agreements requiring workers to to repay the cost of the course if they were to leave the job, are fired or laid off. To clarify, this bill does not apply to loan forgiveness programs or prohibit employers from offering bonuses or voluntary programs.

Workers should be able to decide where they want to work and not be afraid to speak out without the threat of financial debt or retaliation. With me today to provide supporting testimony are Carmen Comsti, Assistant Government Relations Director of the California Nurses Association, and Beth Mora, Attorney of Mora Employment Law.

Good morning, Vice Chair and Committee Members. I'm Carmen Comsti with the California Nurses Association, a proud co-sponsor of AB 692. Along with the Chair in this legislature, CNA has worked for years to ensure that employers cannot use debt repayment contracts to lock nurses and other workers into jobs, often with substandard working conditions.

About 40% of new nurses have had to sign a debt trap. In a trap, if a nurse quits, is laid off or terminated for any reason before finishing a minimum work period, usually two or three years, they must pay their employer up to $15,000 or even more for alleged costs.

Hospitals recruit new nurses into these stay or pay contracts with the promise of high quality training, but it's a bait and switch where they're only getting the on the job training that any newly hired nurse receives. They're put in the worst shifts with unsafe staffing, but with the threat of debt hanging over them, the nurses are chilled from speaking out, from advocating for their patients, being active in the union, or simply from finding better work.

A recent study found that 1 in 12 are subject to a trap. They're not just in health care, but in tech, transportation, retail pilots, coders, truck drivers are in traps.

Low wage workers at PetSmart have been indebted for thousands to their employer for a grooming academy where their so-called training is just grooming pets for paying customers. These contracts effectively function as an exit fee to leave a job, whether it's a fee for training, recruitment equipment or just liquidated damages.

Importantly, current law has limited deterrent effect on employers use of traps While the Labor Code requires that employers pay the costs that arise from workers performance of their work duties, these claims are typically retrospective fact intensive inquiries.

This bill addresses the chilling effect and job mobility restraints of stay or pay contracts, clarifying that prospect of relief is available to workers and expressly stating its statute that these terms are unlawful and void. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions and we urge you to pass the bill. Would you like to speak?

Yes, thank you. Good morning. Good morning Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Beth Mora of Mora Employment Law. I'm an active member of the California Employment Lawyers Association, a co-sponsor of AB 692.

CELA is proud to work alongside the Chair and CAN to ensure that employers cannot use debt repayment contracts to force workers to remain in jobs, often with threatening and substandard working conditions. I have represented employees in the workplace for over 25 years.

Sadly, I have seen the great harm of traps having on individual workers fearful of the financial impact of the trap, thus forced to stay in the abusive workplace.

A few of the clients I have represented who have had the handcuffs of the traps included workers who were sexually assaulted, workers who were repeatedly sexually harassed by their manager, workers subjected to persistent discrimination remarks based on their race, and workers denied time to attend medical appointments because of cancer treatment they needed.

When these workers exhibited tremendous courage and sought assistance from their employer for these discrimination in the workplace, they were threatened due to the trap and the monies that they were demanded from them. If they quit, they were threatened with that threat of monies, harassment and so forth. If they were fired, it was in retaliation for that complaint.

In these situations where I've represented the employees that despite these threats of the trap, they brought legal action. The employer asserted the trap as a set off against damages. We argue the California Labor Code requires employers to pay the costs that arise from a worker's performance of their work duties and thus sought proper reimbursement instead.

Interestingly, in those situations, employers argued said costs were not intended to be covered by the statute and fought against the statute being applicable in those said matters. Of importance, during intake process with workers who face traps, matters either independently or coupled with an abusive work environment, they find absolutely no comfort in learning that there is a labor code which they can use to argue that the trap is not a debt, but a workplace expense.

As they are forced to explain to them that this is something they can do after the fact, after they've incurred the expense, and that it is time, in fact, intensive, that they would have to hire an attorney. Please know that I get 20 to 40 phone calls a week for intakes.

This is a question I have received consistently for 25 years. And those employees stay because they cannot afford it. They have to choose between the abusive work environment and the threat. They have to choose rent, food, medical bills. So they stay.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any speakers in support of AB 692? Please come forward.

Hello, I'm Brittany Stonesifer for Kaiser Advocacy, on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition or CLICC.

Morning Vice Chair. Ken Wang on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, Student Borrower Protection Center and the American Economic Liberties Project, proud co-sponsors in support. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. Yvonne Fernandez, on the behalf of the California Labor Federation, proud co-sponsor and also on behalf of the UFCW in support. Thank you.

Any speakers in opposition to AB 692? Please come forward. Any key witnesses?

Please proceed.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. AB 692, by its text, would prohibit an employer from collecting any payment from an employee or independent contractor upon the end of their employment or contract.

This is a repeat of a bill that was run a couple of years ago by Assemblymember McCarty, AB 747. And that bill was not brought up on the floor either at house of origin or the following January because of a lot of concerns of the unintended consequences of that bill.

One of which would be to jeopardize programs that are good for workers. Things like signing bonus or tuition payment assistance programs that a lot of our members offer.

For example, when restaurants were trying to hire coming out of the pandemic, a lot of smaller restaurants relied on things like signing bonus, a bonus given to the worker on day one to encourage applicants and compete with some of their larger competitors.

As we read this bill, a worker who received one of those bonuses would effectively be able to quit and walk away two days later. And while some large businesses, for example, maybe can absorb that cost, can take that risk, especially for smaller businesses, they could not do so.

And as mentioned, there is labor code already that prohibits an employer requiring an employee to pay them back for any training that is mandated or part of the expense that they are incurring as part of employment. There is very, very clear case law on this.

For example, the PetSmart decision that was raised right, that court case was about mandating workers stay for a couple of years in order to pay back required grooming training imposed on those employees. That is absolutely illegal under current law. If there is some sort of clarification that needs to be made, they're very happy to discuss that.

But unfortunately as the bill is in print, we cannot support at this time. Thank you.

Very good. Did you want to speak?

Yes, please. Thank you Madam Chair. Eduardo Martinez. I'm here on behalf of AltaMed Health Services. We're a large safety net provider serving medically underserved communities and across Southern California. And we have an opposed unless amended position on this bill.

It's well established that one of the best ways to address our state's chronic healthcare workforce shortage is to invest in professionals who come from or train in the communities where we need them most.

According to the California Future Health Workforce Commission, over 7 million Californians, mostly Latino, African American, Native Americans, live in health professional shortage areas, especially in places like the Inland Empire, Los Angeles and San Joaquin Valley. Unfortunately, this bill as written could undermine voluntary employee-driven upskilling programs.

Programs that providers like AltaMed use to grow the next generation of health care professionals. These are modeled on successful state and federal initiatives that tie training to short term service in high need areas.

We're asking for a narrow exemption for training programs that are initiated by the employee, are completely voluntary and are unrelated to their current job duties. These programs help employees who otherwise couldn't afford training and are critical for improving access to care in underserved areas.

Since the legislature last heard this proposal, funding for workforce programs has declined, making employer sponsored training even more vital. We urge the committee to protect these programs and consider our proposed amendments to protect healthcare workforce pipelines serving our most vulnerable communities. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any comments up here? Oh, excuse me, didn't have opposition. Please proceed. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris McKayley, on behalf of SHRM, the Society for Human Resource Management, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Mike Robson here on behalf of the American Staffing Association and the California Staffing Professionals, opposed.

Thank you.

Good morning. Marlon Lara, on behalf of the California Restaurant Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Ben Ebbink, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Katie Davey with the Dairy Institute of California. We're opposed.

Good morning. Nick Chiappe here on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Kalyn Dean on behalf of the California Hospital Association, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Jacob Brent, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Eric Lawyer on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Alejandro Solis on behalf of the California Primary Care Association, respectful opposition.

Buenos Dias. Good morning. Isabel Solis, on behalf of Los Amigos De La Comunidad Incorporated, in opposition.

Bringing it up to the Committee. Any comments? Seeing nothing. Do we have a motion? Mr. Chair, do you have your closing comments?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call] That's on call.

That's on call. Okay.

Thank you. As the chair returns.

Do we have a motion on the consent Calendar?

[Consent Calendar]

So we'll place the consent calendar on call. Yeah, I just want to make announcement. Item 14, AB 1413. Papin has been removed from today's agenda. Do we have a motion on item 16, which I presented earlier? AB 1521. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, thank you.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so 1234. We need three more. So place. We'll place AB 1521 on call, and then I'll go to the other one there. Yeah, there was. If we can go ahead and just allow Assembly Member Connolly to add on.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll place that back on call, and then I'll head down and present my last Bill after making a note here. Okay, so I'll go ahead and present, then on item 17, AB 1522.

Please proceed.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. As officers of the court, attorneys are sworn to uphold and protect the rights of others. This obligation requires attorneys to take positions that, at times, may not be socially or politically popular.

As a former public defender, I know firsthand how difficult it can be to make unpopular arguments in order to zealously represent a client. Unfortunately, attorneys are now finding themselves targeted for professional retribution for representing clients and taking positions that displeased some political groups. This Bill seeks to protect the dignity of the legal profession in two ways.

First, this Bill tasks the State Bar with developing an expedited licensing program for attorneys who previously worked in federal service and were fired through no fault of their own. This Bill would recognize the high level of professional competence and dedication to public service possessed by these attorneys.

Secondly, this Bill ensures that attorneys who provide legal advice or other assistance to those in need of reproductive health care cannot have their California law license threatened because another state seeks discipline for providing legal services that are wholly legal in California. This Bill is sponsored by this Committee, is supported by legal aid organizations, and has no opposition.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do we have any comments from anyone in support of AB 1522? Seeing none. Any speakers in opposition, come forward. Seeing none. Do we have any comments over on the Committee, Mr. Zbur?

Yes. So I want to thank the author. Part of this Bill was formerly AB 715, which was the part of the Bill related to making sure that we are protecting California's leadership and protecting reproductive rights and gender-affirming care to prevent tax on health care.

And it was a Bill that added an exception to the State Bar act, which clarified that providing legal representation, counsel and other assistance related to sexual, reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare that's not illegal in California but considered misconduct in another state can't be used grounds for disciplinary action. Srongly support the Bill.

This was also supported by Planned Parenthood in its original form. And I'd like to move the Bill.

Thank you. Any other comments? Any other comments? I have a couple questions. Not regarding the comments that my colleague Mr. Zbur made. That's perfectly fine.

What I'm thinking about is the blanket acceptance of 44,000 federal lawyers, of which not all of them have been dismissed, to come in to practice law in California without taking the California bar exam, which is nationally recognized as a difficult bar exam. I think it's great. Federal lawyer, attorney who's been practicing for the U.S. Government.

They certainly have the skill set, I would assume. And so they've taken a bar exam. That's fine. I think just to enter the California practice of law, it seems to me, some minimum standards to assure professional responsibility. Some of the aspects of the California bar exam, professional responsibility and moral character.

I would like to see that included somehow, if you'd like to consider that. Otherwise, I think it's fine. But I just think there should be a little bit of a more of a standard without just a blanket admission, without any standard check whatsoever on professional responsibility and moral character.

Well, I appreciate those comments, Madam Vice Chair. And this Bill is really tasking the state bar to develop that expedited licensing process. And so, you know, we'll certainly, you know, you are doing that right now, passing on your feedback on that. And I think that's absolutely appropriate.

And we don't want to, we're not micromanaging how they do it, but we just want to tell them, develop that process. And I'll give you. And look, we know that not all, you know, if there are thousands of attorneys that are let go by the Federal Government, they're all going to swarm to California.

But I did, I'll just give you an example. Last Friday. I was at a legally related dinner for a nonprofit, the Asian Law alliance, in San Jose on Friday last week, and I met someone that literally that day had just resigned from the Federal Trade Commission because a lot of different reasons.

And the reasons that aren't necessarily even relevant at this moment, but the reality is she would like to go work for our Attorney General's Office or Department of Justice. Giving someone like that the opportunity they're already working here in California.

The ability to have an expedited process, not no process, but an expedited process, I think could be helpful, especially to ensure that certainly our DOJ staffed up. But no matter where they want to work, it gives them the opportunity to do that.

Yeah. Okay. Very good. Is that your closing statement?

Well, I just want to say one more thing. I do want to express my appreciation for Assemblymember Zbur. You know, he did have a wonderful Bill that was kind of folded into this one that I think meets the intent of what he was trying to do. And his instincts were absolutely correct on that.

And I think this gives us the opportunity to have a comprehensive Bill that achieves multiple goals. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very good.

Motion's do pass. [Roll Call]

Okay, so that Bill is gonna be.

I just want to be sure that these amendments get in there. So I'll be no until they get those amendments.

Okay.

Dixon, no.

Thanks.

Okay. And so that will place that Bill on call. It needs two more votes. Needs two. And next up, I would like to ask file item 10, AB 1234 Assemblymember Ortega has joined us.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I am pleased to present AB 1234, which will encourage employers to participate in the state's wage claim process. We know that wage theft is a significant problem in California, where workers lose an average of $2 billion annually due to unpaid wages. Our wage claim process is broken.

Claims are taking over two years on average, to be resolved when the law requires that they be completed in 135 days. There is also a startling backlog. Backlog of 47,000 wage claims as of last year. Even if workers prevail on their claim, they are likely to see only a portion of what was stolen from them.

We must have a sense of urgency in making the system more efficient and responsive. That is why AB 1234 is so important.

This measure will encourage employers to actually participate in the wage claim process by authorizing the labor Commissioner to enter a judgment against them when they fail to answer the wage claim complaint or fail to attend a hearing.

I know that some Committee Members have concerns with the bill's 30% administrative fee, and I am committed to continuing discussions about how to structure the fee so it doesn't penalize employers who are acting in good faith.

Now I would like to turn it over to our first witness, Marta Lepe Martinez, to share her experience with wage theft, and then to Daniela Urban, Executive Director of the Chair for Workers Rights. If it's okay with the Chair, Daniella will be translating for Ms. Martinez.

Sure, no problem.

Hola. Buenos Dias. Mi nombres. Marta Lepe Martinez.

Good morning. My name is Martelepe Martinez.

Durante ocho años trabajé como cuidadora de la Sra. Victoria Chávez.

For eight years, I worked as a caregiver for Ms. Victoria Chavez.

Contratada por suijo Nick Ugarte.

I was hired by her son, Nick Ugarte.

Ese tiempo sufri robo De salario.

During this time, I experienced wage theft.

Me deben más de $300,000.

I am owed more than $300,000.

Después de que la Sra. Victoria muriera en 2017.

After Ms. Victoria died in 2017,

Nick, su hijo, cortó toda comunicación conmigo.

Nick, her son, cut off all communication with me.

Y ni siquiera me dejó asistir a su funeral.

And he wouldn't even let me attend her funeral.

Poco después, mi marido y yo fuimos desalojados.

Shortly after, my husband and I were evicted.

Enfrentando una profunda crisis financiera y emocional.

Facing a deep crisis financially and emotionally.

Con laudo De rechos laborales.

With the help of the Center for Workers Rights.

Presenté una reclamación con la Comisionada Laboral

I filed a claim with the Labor Commissioner.

Tenilla Esperanza quel processo fuer arrapido.

I had hoped that the process would be quick.

Para poder reconstruir mi vida.

So that I could rebuild my life.

Pero esperé más de tres años sólo para tener una audiencia.

But I waited more than three years just to have a hearing.

Durante todo este tiempo.

During this whole time.

Nic Ugarte nunca se presento.

Nico Ugarte never showed up.

Para cualquier conferencia o mostrado cualquier deseo de resolver el caso.

For any conference or displayed any desire to resolve the case.

Este proceso ha tardado más de ocho años.

This process has taken more than eight years.

Para conseguir justicia.

Todavía estoy esperando mi dinero.

to get any justice.

I am still waiting for my money

Y por eso estoy apoyando.

And that's why I am supporting.

AB 1234.

AB 1234.

Este proyecto de ley incentivará a los empleadores

This bill will encourage employers

Presentarse temprano en el proceso.

To come forward early in the process.

Y asumir sus responsabilidades.

And assume their responsibilities.

Mientras sigo esperando justicia.

While I'm still waiting for justice.

Con su apoyo a la AB 1234.

With your support for AB 1234,

Podremos prevenir que otras Persona sufra and lo que yo bv.

We can prevent what others from suffering what I experience.

Gracias porres cuciarme.

Thank you for listening. Good morning Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Daniella Urban. I am the Executive Director of the Center for Workers rights. For over 10 years, I have helped workers pursue wage theft claims through the California Labor Commissioner's Office.

I have seen firsthand how the delays in the process and the employer's ability to ignore claims leave workers struggling to recover their hard earned wages.

Last summer, we held monthly workshops to help workers file their claims, detailing violations, wages owed, and penalties of the claims submitted in our first session on June 1, 2024 not a single employer from these claims has received any notice from the Labor Commissioner to date. These delays are not due to the incomplete claims or missing information.

The problem is the process at the Labor Commissioner itself. The consequences of these delays are severe and real for one of the employers who worked with filing their claim on June 1, 2024 more than 12 other workers have now come forward to file claims against the same employer.

The system is not stopping bad actors from committing wage theft again and again. One of the biggest reasons for these delays is the employers have no obligation to participate in the process.

While cases sit unresolved, workers struggle to survive without the wages they are owed and at the end of the process, often several years later, the worst that happens is the employers pay the exact same amount they were required to pay in the beginning of the process. No extra costs, no consequences for dragging out the claim.

In civil lawsuits, employers factor in costs such as discovery motions and fee shifting of attorneys fees when deciding to fight a case. None of these costs apply to the Labor Commissioner claims, allowing employers to contest valid claims with no downside.

AB 1234 reforms the individual wage claim process to reduce delays in workers seeking justice by creating greater efficiencies in the system and putting in determinant deterrence for employers who engage in wage theft. The wage theft process is meant to be a low cost, informal way to resolve wage theft claims and we want to keep it that way.

But to make it truly efficient, we must stop employers from exploiting state resources to delay justice for workers. And that's why we are co sponsors of AB 1234.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1234?

Good morning Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Von Fernandez with the California Labor Federation proud co sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jessica Hay with CFTs, we're in support.

Thank you.

Morning Chair and Members. Marty Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Thank you.

Morning Mr. Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you.

Morning Chair and Members. Ken Wang on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Marisola Dunes from Center for Workers Rights, I support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1234?

Good morning Mr. Chair Members. Sorry to have my back to the other Members. Chris McKayley here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We were pleased to hear the author in her opening remarks about the administrative penalty that is CJAC's sole concern.

We believe the 30% administrative penalty is excessive in proposed Section 98.1h primarily because it doesn't distinguish between the good and bad actor. I would note, as you heard, Mr. Chair, the other week in Assembly Labor Committee, that the bill doesn't distinguish between the good and the bad actor.

And last year the Cal Supreme Court in the Naranjo decision said that civil statutory penalties are intended to punish the bad actor, but not those who act in good faith. So we look forward to continuing to work with the author and her staff and of course, your Committee to address our concerns. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully also in opposition. I want to start by saying we absolutely share the goal of this bill, which is to to eliminate the backlog of claims in the Labor Commissioner office and make sure that this is a process that works.

I really appreciate all the conversations we've had as recently as yesterday with the author and the sponsors when we ran into each other. So we're making good progress on that.

We do share the concern about the 30% fee which was also raised in the analysis and want to just continue to work on some amendments to make sure this is a Process that works both for good employers who are showing up in good faith and having their day in court at the Labor Commissioner's office.

But then also make sure we are deterring those bad actors and ensuring we're closing those claims as fast as possible. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1234?

Good morning. Nick Chappie here on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ben Eink, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Marlon Lahr, on behalf of the California Restaurant Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jacob Brent, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Gail Delahan with Western Growers Association. Our Members grow fresh produce in California and we are in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

And before we continue, will you be accepting the amendments?

Thank you very much. It's always good to hear when sponsors and opposition run into each other and start talking about how they can get to an agreement on a bill. So keep, keep doing that. Keep running into each other. Any questions or any questions or comments, Madam Vice Chair?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the. I mean, I can't say it strongly enough. Someone doesn't get paid for their wages. That's reprehensible. I think, I do think the 30% penalty to the employer when just listening to your remarks. It's the labor office, the Labor Commissioner's office that's creating the delay.

If the employee, if the employer, if the employee submitted their forms, the Labor Commissioner has to initiate the process. And so I don't know why the employer's being penalized. I just hope you could work that out because we must support the people. They must get paid for the work that they do.

And I hope that we can provide enough resources to the Labor Department, the Labor Commissioner, to adequately perform the duties of their job. So I just hope you could work that out. Then I would be in support of the bill. Thank you.

I believe definitely some of the delays are due to staffing. That's always been an issue for a while with the Labor Commissioner. But the idea of having these additional penalties is if the delay is based upon defendants failure in different areas, including answering a complaint, attending mandatory settlement conferences, or appearing at the hearing on the complaint.

So it wouldn't apply just in general to delays, but delays that were incurred.

Well, right, but I think there could be process improvements. I mean, there's absolutely certain time, turnaround time and that type of thing so this doesn't drag on Certainly.

Certainly. I mean, I think there's, there's a lot of different areas where there can be improvements, and our authors identified one of them, and hopefully there can be continued conversation to get to some agreement.

I do believe that right now there's really not much of an incentive for employers to settle or let alone respond to a claim if there's no penalty at all. If it's just basically you're paying back what you owed two years ago, then you're just going to drag it on.

Because why pay a bill today if you can just pay it in two years and it's the same bill?

Oh, again, yes. And this applies. Those penalties apply if it's the conduct of the, of the employer that causes that delay, not if there's just General delays that no party's at fault for. Senator Bauer-Kahan so, Mr.

Chair, sorry to disagree, but you know, I'm disagreeable. So my reading of the bill is not that it is that anybody who loses a claim would have to pay the 30% fee. Do anybody sitting here disagree with me on that?

That's right. If they're found guilty for wage theft, they'll have to pay the fee. Yeah.

Whether the delay was their fault or not.

And so I guess that's delay comes from they're not paying the wages at time due, which is on their pay and their regular pay stub.

Right. And I will say I agree with my colleague from Orange County that there is no question that wage theft, we need to do better. I mean, the story is so clear, and I'm glad both sides are saying that.

And I think that we on this dais need to take ownership for the government's failure in this process, which is absolutely a part of the problem. Not the whole problem to your point, but part of the problem.

And I think that I would be, you know, I would love to come to a hearing that the Labor Committee might have to have an oversight hearing on this question of why the labor Commissioner cannot do this in an efficient way. I mean, I think it's a question we should be asking.

These people should be getting their wages quickly, and we should be doing the oversight to ensure that happens.

And I think for those that get the default judgment under the bill, which by the way, I think is a great addition to the law, if you don't participate and you're willfully just trying to delay this, you should have a default judgment period. I think the 30% makes sense. You've caused the delay.

As the Chair said, that penalty should absolutely be. There should be a deterrent to acting that way.

I will say that I had this conversation with the author, which is that for those that just believe they didn't do it wrong, that maybe they wasn't wage theft, that they paid them right and they want their hearing and they do participate and they do do everything as they should have and they lose, which happens.

I represent a lot of people who thought they did it right and they support the judicial system and they pay their fines. I don't think those entities should have to pay the 30%. I think that is us fining them for our failures to run good government.

And so I know I've had this conversation with the author, but I think that piece really needs to change where it is. As the chair indicated, those that have caused the delay, that are paying that 30% fee. And so I just wanted to give the author a chance to sort of address that.

Yeah. And I did that in my opening statements. Absolutely. Yes. No worries. I am absolutely willing to have that conversation about the fear and the 30%. We do not want to penalize those employers who are acting in good faith. Absolutely.

And so I'm willing to continue that conversation and continue to meet in the hallway so we can keep talking about it. On the issue of the Labor Commissioner and other departments. Absolutely.

And I have had a hearing, not with the Labor Commissioner, but with the OSHA and the office of the Department of OSHA, and I've had this conversation with them. It's not a matter of, you know, and some can argue resources. Yes, they might need more resources.

I'm never going to say don't give them more resources, but how are those resources being used? And are they being used effectively and efficiently? And the answer is no, and it's an answer priority. These wage theft claims have not been prioritized for a long time. And the bigger question here is, when are we going to do that?

And that's what I want to do, is prioritize wage theft claims like the example that was just given, so that they're not waiting two to nine years to get their money that was stolen from them. And if they're lucky enough to get through that process, then they get a portion, a very small amount of money in return.

And that's just not okay. So this is the beginning of that conversation and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And I do appreciate the feedback. And I think that there is some space here to determine different kinds of actors. And I think that that's something that I know the chair will be committed to working on. This is something that, you know, even prior chairs have had hearings or conversations with the Labor Commissioner on.

I'm hopeful that this chair can achieve what the past Chair wasn't able to achieve and get some more progress on this matter. Yeah, of course. Yeah.

It just occurs to me the, the recourse should, should not only be to the person who's lost $300,000 or $3,000 or $300 in wage theft. There's a court of law. There's so many nonprofit legal aid society type lawyers and nonprofits to help process a lawsuit against someone who absconded with your wages. Did you try that process?

I'm just curiously, instead of. I was her attorney. Okay. Did you try that?

We used the Labor Commissioner process and it took three years to get a hearing.

But can't you just file a lawsuit against that employer?

No, because the cost to recover. Right. She's waited eight years for payment. So if we had gone through court, it would have been the same outcome, and us as a small nonprofit would have been out all of the costs of litigation, including depositions and discovery. So that process is actually much more burdensome to go through.

So we would have had to go to a trial or potentially default judgment, and all of those expenses would have been on the court as opposed to the Labor Commissioner. Most workers who go through the Labor Commissioner process do not have advocates.

We are the only organization in all of Sacramento county that represents workers at the Labor Commissioner's office. So most. We can't represent everyone. We are one attorney, nonprofit, so there isn't representation. That's why the Labor Commissioner process exists, so that there can be an informal remedy.

But when that process is failing, the alternative isn't court because there isn't the ability to recover with the same speed. Yeah.

Well, I think your conversations with the Labor Commissioner could be productive.

I also mentioned the Auditor's report that came out over the summer. That's where this bill came from, was the Auditor's recommendation.

All right, well, do we have a motion? We have a motion. Is there a second? Okay, a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Motions do passes amended to appropriations. [Roll Call] AB 1234 Ortega. [Roll Call]

And and before we close, I do want to thank the witness for being here and also if I could be added as a co author. Thank you. And then we'll place that bill on call. Thank you. Thank you. Item three, AB390.

All right. All right. Whenever you're ready.

All right. Good morning. Thank you, Chair and members, I'm pleased to present AB 394, a bill focused on protecting frontline transit workers and the riders they serve. I want to start by thanking the Chair and committee staff for their thoughtful review of the bill and for working with us on amendments that we will be accepting today.

As you are aware, California's transit workers are essential personnel who help millions of people reach their destination safely every day. Unfortunately, they and our systems riders are increasingly targeted by assault, stalking, and harassment while simply doing their jobs or riding the systems.

This rise in violence not only endangers the safety of our transit workforce and our riders, but also undermines public confidence, disrupts service, and increasing, excuse me, increases operating costs for transit agencies statewide. AB 394 takes several key steps to address this, first being clarifying that enhanced penalties for battery extend to all frontline transit employees, not just the operators.

Think transit ambassadors, ticket agents, mechanics, and more. Confirming that existing law, allowing employers and labor representatives to seek temporary restraining orders, also known as TROs on behalf of employees, apply specifically in the transit context.

It also allows courts to apply these TROs system wide across all vehicles, stations, and facilities when necessary, to fully protect transit workers and prevent repeat offenses. Public transit is both a shared and functional space. It is a privilege, not a right. If someone endangers others, they should not have access to the system.

I would like to now introduce my two witnesses, Bill Churchill from County Connection and Louie Costa from State Safety and Legislative Director for our Smart Transportation Division. For technical questions, I'm also joined by Matt Broad representing the California Teamsters, who's available.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Is it something? Thank you, Mr. Chair, members, Louie Costa with the Sheet, Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, Transportation Division. We present thousands of bus and transit operators in California. Thousands at LA Metro, Santa Monica, City of Montebello, Santa Cruz Metro.

All of our Members at all the agencies that they work have been affected by these assaults on transit operators. It has gotten worse. It continues to get worse. They, they fear when they go to work their, their vehicle, their bus, their transit vehicle, that is their workspace, that is their workplace and they should be able to be safe within their workplace.

You couldn't imagine if somebody were to come into my office or my workspace and assault me, then I have to allow them to come back in there again. And that's what's happening over and over sometimes. We've had a member that was attacked by a with a hammer several times, placed in the hospital.

When they returned to work several months later, the same person that was their attacker, they were instructed to allow to get on the vehicle that they are in with that individual. And that it just cannot happen. It hurts retention and recruitment for bus operators.

And it affects the public safety when we allow these repeat offenders and these bad actors to get on public transportation. But the operators themselves, the essential workers need to have something like AB 394, another tool in their, in their fight against this scourge of assaults against them. And with that I just respectfully ask for your aye vote to protect these essential workers.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and committee members, appreciate the opportunity to be here today. My name again is Bill Churchill. I'm the general manager of County Connection. We're a medium sized transit operator. We provide services to 10 cities in central Contra Costa County.

You know, as a general rule, our operators and supervisors do a fantastic job of mitigating conflicts, disruptions and between the writing public and themselves, however, there is an extremely small group of individuals that are violent, not just with our employees, but with their fellow riders as well that require a more significant intervention to ensure the safety of our employees and other transit passengers.

Under current state law, Civil Code 527.8, employers may seek a temporary restraining order or TRO on behalf of their employees. Over the past five years, County Connection has sought and received TROs against seven individuals for repeated violent behavior while riding on our system.

This equates to less than 1/100th of a percent of our riding public, but it represents over 80% of the serious disruptions to our service and 99% of those disruptions resulting from violent action.

When a violent incident occurs on our buses, the operator immediately parks a bus, calls for support, transit supervisors and police are dispatched, which results in students being late for school, workers not getting to their jobs on time, or people missing medical appointments.

Obtaining temporary restraining orders against a few individuals has had a profoundly positive impact in protecting our employees and passengers. It's important to recognize TROs are temporary and the length of time they are in place is commensurate with the danger an individual poses as determined by a court. Additionally, the courts have complete latitude.

Good.

Thank you. Forgive me. Additionally, courts have complete latitude consider to consider extenuating circumstances on a case by case basis and do not always grant us what we want.

However, our many years of experience has demonstrated that individuals who have had TROs in the past but are now allowed back on our buses no longer engage in the same violent behavior. County Connection has only had to seek an extension for one individual.

A transit agency's ability to seek TROs against individuals engaging in violent behavior is an absolutely critical tool for protecting our employees, the writing public, and the foundational reliability of our transit systems. As such, we are pleased to join our partners in labor in supporting AB 394 and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 394? Oh, yes, go ahead. You can do the me too, right?

Just, I'm gonna do a me too from here. Mr. Chair, members, Matt Broad, on behalf of the Teamsters and ATU cosponsors. Happy to answer any technical questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Matt Robinson, on behalf of the California Transit Association. We are also one of the cosponsors of the bill. Thanks to your staff for their work on this. This is our highest priority piece of legislation.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Michael Pimentel here representing a number of transit agencies including Solano County Transit, SF Bay Ferry, Monterey-Salinas Transit, and the San Joaquin Regional Transit District, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Chris McKayley on behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, everybody. Scott Brent, Smart TD, Stockton, CA in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you.

Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members, Beverly Yu on behalf of AAA Mountain west group, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning. On several on behalf of several transit agencies, Brennan Orpicky, Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, San Mateo County Transit District, Sunline Transit Agency, and CalTrain in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and members, McKinley Thompson-Morley, on behalf of San Bernardino County Transportation Authority in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jared Bell, Smart TD, Local 835 Bakersfield, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Meghann Adams, president of Smart Local 1741, representing school bus drivers in San Francisco, in support.

Thank you. Right, is there anyone here in opposition to AB 394?

Rebecca Gonzalez with Western Center on Law and Poverty. We continue to oppose because of the, it will bar certain people from all transit. Thank you. But still talking to the author.

Thank you very much. And I also want to thank the author for taking amendments. I think that at least gives some sort of discretion to the courts.