Automotive unions

TopicBill numbersort iconAuthorInterest positionBecame law
An Act to Add Part 4.5 (Commencing with Section 1450) to Division 2 Of, and to Repeal Section 1454 Of, the Labor Code, Relating to Domestic Work Employees. AB 241 (2013-2014) AmmianoSupportYes
(1)Existing law regulates the wages, hours, and working conditions of any man, woman, and minor employed in any occupation, trade, or industry, whether compensation is measured by time, piece, or… More
(1)Existing law regulates the wages, hours, and working conditions of any man, woman, and minor employed in any occupation, trade, or industry, whether compensation is measured by time, piece, or otherwise, except as specified. Existing law creates the Industrial Welfare Commission and authorizes it to adopt rules, regulations, and orders to ensure that employers comply with those provisions. Wage Order No. 15-2001 of the commission regulates wages, hours, and working conditions for household occupations. Existing law makes violations of certain of these provisions a misdemeanor. This bill would enact the Domestic Worker Bill of Rights to, until January 1, 2017, regulate the hours of work of certain domestic work employees and provide an overtime compensation rate for those employees. The bill would define various terms for the purposes of the act, including defining domestic work to mean services related to the care of persons in private households or maintenance of private households or their premises, which would include childcare providers, caregivers of people with disabilities, sick, convalescing, or elderly persons, house cleaners, housekeepers, maids, and other household occupations. The bill would, until January 1, 2017, require the Governor to convene a committee to study and report to the Governor on the effects of this act. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2)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. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 98.6, 98.7, 1102.5, and 1103 Of, to Add Section 1024.6 To, and to Add Chapter 3.1 (Commencing with Section 1019) to Part 3 of Division 2 Of, the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 263 (2013-2014) HernandezSupportYes
Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in… More
Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in prescribed protected conduct relating to the enforcement of the employee’s or applicant’s rights. Existing law provides that an employee who made a bona fide complaint, and was consequently discharged or otherwise suffered an adverse action, is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to willfully refuse to reinstate or otherwise restore an employee who is determined by a specified procedure to be eligible for reinstatement. This bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating or taking adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in protected conduct. The bill would expand the protected conduct to include a written or oral complaint by an employee that he or she is owed unpaid wages. The bill would provide that an employee who was retaliated against or otherwise was subjected to an adverse action is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. The bill would subject a person who violates these provisions to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. The bill would also provide that it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in the enforcement of specified provisions. Because the willful refusal by an employer to reinstate or reimburse an employee who suffered a retaliatory action under these provisions would be a misdemeanor, the bill would expand the scope of a crime and impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law declares that an individual who has applied for employment, or who is or has been employed in this state, is entitled to the protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, regardless of his or her immigration status. Existing law declares that an inquiry into a person’s immigration status for purposes of enforcing state labor and employment laws shall not be permitted, unless a showing is made, by clear and convincing evidence, that the inquiry is necessary in order to comply with federal immigration law. This bill would make it unlawful for an employer or any other person to engage in, or direct another person to engage in, an unfair immigration-related practice, as defined, against a person for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliating against any person for exercising a right protected under state labor and employment laws or under a local ordinance applicable to employees, as specified. The bill would also create a rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 90 days of the exercising of a protected right is committed for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliation. The bill would authorize a civil action by an employee or other person who is the subject of an unfair immigration-related practice. The bill would authorize a court to order the appropriate government agencies to suspend certain business licenses held by the violating party for prescribed periods based on the number of violations. The bill would require the court to consider prescribed circumstances in determining whether a suspension of all licenses is appropriate. Existing law prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Existing law further prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for that disclosure. Under existing law, a violation of these provisions by the employer is a misdemeanor. Existing law additionally subjects an employer that is a corporation or a limited liability company to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of these provisions. This bill would additionally prohibit any person acting on behalf of the employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, as provided, and from retaliating against an employee for such a disclosure. The bill would also expand the prohibited actions to include preventing an employee from, or retaliating against an employee for, providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry. The bill would provide that any person or entity that violates these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor, and would further subject an entity that violates these provisions that is a corporation or limited liability company to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of these provisions. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits an employer or prospective employer, with the exception of certain financial institutions, from obtaining a consumer credit report, as defined, for employment purposes unless it is for a specified position, including, among others, a position in the state Department of Justice, a managerial position, as defined, or a position that involves regular access to $10,000 or more of cash, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating, retaliating, or taking any adverse action against an employee because the employee updates or attempts to update his or her personal information, unless the changes are directly related to the skill set, qualifications, or knowledge required for the job. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 496 that would become operative if this bill and SB 496 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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. Hide
An Act to Add Chapter 17.1 (Commencing with Section 7282) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, Relating to State Government. AB 4 (2013-2014) AmmianoSupportYes
Existing federal law authorizes any authorized immigration officer to issue an immigration detainer that serves to advise another law enforcement agency that the federal department seeks custody of… More
Existing federal law authorizes any authorized immigration officer to issue an immigration detainer that serves to advise another law enforcement agency that the federal department seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the alien. Existing federal law provides that the detainer is a request that the agency advise the department, prior to release of the alien, in order for the department to arrange to assume custody in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible. This bill would prohibit a law enforcement official, as defined, from detaining an individual on the basis of a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement hold after that individual becomes eligible for release from custody, unless, at the time that the individual becomes eligible for release from custody, certain conditions are met, including, among other things, that the individual has been convicted of specified crimes. Hide
An Act to Add Section 128372 to the Health and Safety Code, to Add Section 230.9 to the Labor Code, to Amend Sections 1088.5 and 1095 Of, and to Add Division 11 (Commencing with Section 19000) To, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and to Amend Section 11025 Of, and to Add Article 7 (Commencing with Section 14199) to Chapter 7 of Part 3 of Division 9 Of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, Relating to Health Care Coverage, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, To Take Effect Immediately. AB 880 (2013-2014) GomezSupportNo
Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, to afford to qualifying individuals health care and related remedial or preventive… More
Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, to afford to qualifying individuals health care and related remedial or preventive services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid provisions. Existing law, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires applicable large employers, as defined, who offer full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage and for whom one full-time employee has been certified as having enrolled in a qualified health plan for which a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid, to pay a specified fee. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2015, require a large employer, as defined, to pay the Employment Development Department an employer responsibility penalty for each covered employee, as defined, enrolled in Medi-Cal based on the average cost of employee-only coverage provided by large employers to their employees, including both the employer’s and employee’s share of the premiums, as specified. The bill would assess interest of 10% per annum on employer responsibility penalties not paid on or before the date payment is due, as specified, and would require a large employer subject to an employer responsibility penalty to pay a penalty, as specified, for any employer responsibility penalty payment that is more than 60 days overdue. The bill would establish the Employer Responsibility for Medi-Cal Trust Fund, which would consist of the penalty amounts and interest collected pursuant to these provisions and would require that, upon appropriation, the moneys in the fund be used by the State Department of Health Care Services to provide payment for the nonfederal share of Medi-Cal costs for covered employees, to increase reimbursement to providers of care by providing supplemental Medi-Cal payments for specified benefits and providers, to provide reimbursement to county health systems, community clinics, and other safety net providers, as defined, that provide care without expectation of compensation to those Californians who do not have minimum essential coverage, as defined, to fund medical residency programs that meet certain criteria developed by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and for all costs to implement the penalty provisions, as specified. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2015, prohibit a large employer from discharging or taking other action, as specified, against an employee who enrolls in a public health benefit program or advance premium tax credits through the California Health Benefit Exchange, and would provide that an employee is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement of lost wages and work benefits if a large employer discharges or takes other action against an employee for those reasons. The bill would authorize an employee to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement of the Department of Industrial Relations if the employee is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated or retaliated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer in violation of these provisions. Existing law requires employers to file specified information with the Employment Development Department, upon hiring an employee, that may be used by specified state departments, exchanges, and boards, and county departments and agencies for specified purposes, including verifying or determining the eligibility of an applicant for, or a recipient of, state health subsidy programs, as specified, if the verification or determination is directly connected with, and limited to, the administration of the referenced state health subsidy programs. This bill would expand these provisions to allow the information to be used if the verification or determination is directly connected with, and limited to, the administration or funding of the referenced state health subsidy programs. Existing law authorizes the Director of the Employment Development Department to permit the use of information in his or her possession for specified purposes and to require reimbursement for all direct costs incurred in providing that information. Existing law provides that this information includes information provided to enable federal, state, or local government departments or agencies, subject to federal law, to verify or determine the eligibility or entitlement of an applicant for, or a recipient of, public social services if the verification or determination is directly connected with, and limited to, the administration of public social services. This bill would expand these provisions to allow the information to be used if the verification or determination is directly connected with, and limited to, the administration or funding of the public social services. Existing law also authorizes the director to permit the use of information in his or her possession and to require reimbursement for all direct costs incurred in providing that information to enable specified state departments, exchanges, and boards, and county departments and agencies, to obtain information regarding employee wages, California employer names and account numbers, employer reports of wages and number of employees, and disability insurance and unemployment insurance claim information, for specified purposes. This bill would authorize the director to provide information to enable these entities to obtain information regarding state employer identification numbers. The bill would also authorize the director to provide to the State Department of Health Care Services employer information and employee wage information on individuals who are enrolled in the Medi-Cal program to determine the employer responsibility penalties that would owed by large employers. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services and the State Department of Health Care Services to make use of the records of the Franchise Tax Board to match unearned income against reported income of applicants for, and recipients of, aid or public social services. This bill would also require each department to use these records to match social security numbers of applicants for, and recipients of, aid or public services with their employer’s state employer identification number, which shall then be forwarded to the appropriate county welfare department or other appropriate state departments for use, as specified.This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 12920, 12921, 12926, 12940, and 12955.2 of the Government Code, Relating to Fair Employment. SB 404 (2013-2014) JacksonSupportNo
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, protects and safeguards the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or… More
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, protects and safeguards the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation. This bill would include “familial status,” as defined, as an additional basis upon which the right to seek, obtain, and hold employment cannot be denied. Hide
An Act to Add Sections 494.6 and 6103.7 to the Business and Professions Code, and to Amend Sections 98.6 and 1102.5 Of, and to Add Section 244 To, the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. SB 666 (2013-2014) SteinbergSupportYes
Existing law establishes grounds for suspension or revocation of certain business and professional licenses. This bill would subject those business licenses to suspension or revocation, with a… More
Existing law establishes grounds for suspension or revocation of certain business and professional licenses. This bill would subject those business licenses to suspension or revocation, with a specified exception, if the licensee has been determined by the Labor Commissioner or the court to have violated specified law and the court or Labor Commissioner has taken into consideration any harm such a suspension or revocation would cause to employees of the licensee, as well as the good faith efforts of the licensee to resolve any alleged violations after receiving notice. The bill would subject a licensee of an agency within the Department of Consumer Affairs who has been found by the Labor Commissioner or the court to have violated specified law to disciplinary action by his or her respective licensing agency. The State Bar Act establishes specific causes for the disbarment or suspension of a member of the State Bar. This bill would make it a cause for suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for any member of the State Bar to report suspected immigration status or threaten to report suspected immigration status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative action or his or her family member, as defined, to a federal, state, or local agency because the witness or party exercises or has exercised a right related to his or her employment. Existing law establishes various rights and protections relating to employment and civil rights that may be enforced by civil action. This bill would provide that it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in order to bring a civil action enforcing designated rights. Under the bill, reporting or threatening to report an employee’s, former employee’s, or prospective employee’s suspected citizenship or immigration status, or the suspected citizenship or immigration status of the employee’s or former employee’s family member, as defined, to a federal, state, or local agency because the employee, former employee, or prospective employee exercises a designated right would constitute an adverse action for purposes of establishing a violation of the designated right. Because a violation of certain of those designated rights is a misdemeanor, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by changing the definition of a crime. Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in prescribed protected conduct relating to the enforcement of the employee’s or applicant’s rights. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to take adverse employment action against employees who file bona fide complaints. This bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating or taking any adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in protected conduct. The bill would expand the protected conduct to include a written or oral complaint by an employee that he or she is owed unpaid wages. The bill would subject an employer to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation of these provisions. Existing law entitles an employee to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and benefits if the employee has been discharged, demoted, suspended, or in any way discriminated against because the employee engaged in protected conduct or because the employee made a bona fide complaint or claim or initiated any action or notice, as prescribed. This bill would similarly grant these entitlements to an employee who is retaliated against or subjected to an adverse action. Existing law prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Existing law further prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for such a disclosure. Under existing law, a violation of these provisions by an employer is a crime. This bill would additionally prohibit any person acting on behalf of the employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, as provided, and would extend those prohibitions to preventing an employee from, or retaliating against an employee for, providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry. Because a violation of these provisions by an employer would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 496 that would become operative if this bill and SB 496 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 18897 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Taxation. SB 761 (2013-2014) DeSaulnierSupportNo
The Personal Income Tax Law authorizes an individual to contribute amounts in excess of his or her tax liability for the support of specified funds, including the School Supplies for Homeless… More
The Personal Income Tax Law authorizes an individual to contribute amounts in excess of his or her tax liability for the support of specified funds, including the School Supplies for Homeless Children Fund. Existing law requires the moneys deposited in the School Supplies for Homeless Children Fund to be allocated, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the State Department of Education for the sole purpose of assisting pupils in California pursuant to the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act by providing school supplies and health-related products to homeless children through competitive grant programs, as provided. This bill would instead require the same moneys, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be allocated to the State Department of Education for distribution to a nonprofit organization, exempt from taxation, for the sole purpose of assisting pupils in California pursuant to the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act by providing grants of school supplies and health-related products to partnering learning education agencies, as provided. Hide
An Act to Add Sections 70024 and 70025 to the Education Code, and to Amend Sections 23101 and 25128 Of, to Amend and Repeal Section 25128.5 Of, to Amend, Repeal, and Add Section 25136 Of, and to Add Sections 25128.7 and 25136.1 To, the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Education, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately. AB 1500 (2011-2012) PerezSupportNo
The Corporation Tax Law imposes taxes measured by income and, in the case of a business with business income derived from or attributable to sources both within and without this state, apportions the… More
The Corporation Tax Law imposes taxes measured by income and, in the case of a business with business income derived from or attributable to sources both within and without this state, apportions the business income between this state and other states and foreign countries in accordance with a specified 4-factor formula based on the property, payroll, and sales within and without this state, except that in the case of an apportioning trade or business that derives more than 50% of its gross business receipts from conducting one or more qualified business activities, as defined, business income is apportioned in accordance with a specified 3-factor formula. That law, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2011, allows a taxpayer to apportion its business income in accordance with a single sales factor formula, except as provided, pursuant to an irrevocable annual election, as specified. That law also provides that sales of tangible personal property and sales of other than tangible personal property are in this state in accordance with specified criteria. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012, would require a taxpayer, except as provided, to apportion its business income in accordance with a single sale factor and would allow a taxpayer to annually elect to apportion business income in accordance with the 4-factor formula, as provided. This bill also would revise the rules that determine whether a taxpayer is doing business in this state and would revise the provisions that determine whether sales other than tangible personal property occur in this state, including specific provisions for cable systems or networks. This bill would require any aggregate increase in revenues derived from its provisions less a specified amount, as provided, to be deposited into the Middle Class Scholarship Fund, which the bill would establish, and, upon appropriation by the Legislature, allocate those revenues for the purpose of increasing the affordability of higher education. This bill would become operative only if a specified measure is chaptered and establishes a middle-class scholarship program. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
An Act to Amend and Add Sections 2923.5 and 2923.6 Of, to Amend and Repeal Section 2924 Of, to Add Sections 2920.5, 2923.4, 2923.7, 2924.17, and 2924.20 To, to Add and Repeal Sections 2923.55, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.18, and 2924.19 Of, and to Add, Repeal, and Add Sections 2924.11, 2924.12, and 2924.15 Of, the Civil Code, Relating to Mortgages. AB 278 (2011-2012) EngSupportYes
(1)Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower prior to filing a notice of default to explore options for the borrower… More
(1)Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower prior to filing a notice of default to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure, as specified. Existing law requires a notice of default or, in certain circumstances, a notice of sale, to include a declaration stating that the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the borrower, or has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower, or that no contact was required for a specified reason. This bill would add mortgage servicers, as defined, to these provisions and would extend the operation of these provisions indefinitely, except that it would delete the requirement with respect to a notice of sale. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, additionally require the borrower, as defined, to be provided with specified information in writing prior to recordation of a notice of default and, in certain circumstances, within 5 business days after recordation. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording a notice of default or, until January 1, 2018, recording a notice of sale or conducting a trustee’s sale while a complete first lien loan modification application is pending, under specified conditions. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, establish additional procedures to be followed regarding a first lien loan modification application, the denial of an application, and a borrower’s right to appeal a denial. (2)Existing law imposes various requirements that must be satisfied prior to exercising a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust, including, among other things, recording a notice of default and a notice of sale. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, require a written notice to the borrower after the postponement of a foreclosure sale in order to advise the borrower of any new sale date and time, as specified. The bill would provide that an entity shall not record a notice of default or otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust, the original or substituted trustee, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial interest, as specified. The bill would prohibit recordation of a notice of default or a notice of sale or the conduct of a trustee’s sale if a foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved and certain conditions exist and would, until January 1, 2018, require recordation of a rescission of those notices upon execution of a permanent foreclosure prevention alternative. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, prohibit the collection of application fees and the collection of late fees while a foreclosure prevention alternative is being considered, if certain criteria are met, and would require a subsequent mortgage servicer to honor any previously approved foreclosure prevention alternative. The bill would authorize a borrower to seek an injunction and damages for violations of certain of the provisions described above, except as specified. The bill would authorize the greater of treble actual damages or $50,000 in statutory damages if a violation of certain provisions is found to be intentional or reckless or resulted from willful misconduct, as specified. The bill would authorize the awarding of attorneys’ fees for prevailing borrowers, as specified. Violations of these provisions by licensees of the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate would also be violations of those respective licensing laws. Because a violation of certain of those licensing laws is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that the requirements imposed on mortgage servicers, and mortgagees, trustees, beneficiaries, and authorized agents, described above are applicable only to mortgages or deeds of trust secured by residential real property not exceeding 4 dwelling units that is owner-occupied, as defined, and, until January 1, 2018, only to those entities who conduct more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period, except as specified. The bill would require, upon request from a borrower who requests a foreclosure prevention alternative, a mortgage servicer who conducts more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period to establish a single point of contact and provide the borrower with one or more direct means of communication with the single point of contact. The bill would specify various responsibilities of the single point of contact. The bill would define single point of contact for these purposes. (3)Existing law prescribes documents that may be recorded or filed in court. This bill would require that a specified declaration, notice of default, notice of sale, deed of trust, assignment of a deed of trust, substitution of trustee, or declaration or affidavit filed in any court relative to a foreclosure proceeding or recorded by or on behalf of a mortgage servicer shall be accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence. The bill would require that before recording or filing any of those documents, a mortgage servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and the right to foreclose, including the borrower’s loan status and loan information. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, provide that any mortgage servicer that engages in multiple and repeated violations of these requirements shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to $7,500 per mortgage or deed of trust, in an action brought by specified state and local government entities, and would also authorize administrative enforcement against licensees of the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate. The bill would authorize the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate to adopt regulations applicable to persons and entities under their respective jurisdictions for purposes of the provisions described above. The bill would provide that a violation of those regulations would be enforceable only by the regulating agency. (4)   The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature in relation to foreclosures in the state generally, and would state the purposes of the bill. (5)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. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 226 Of, and to Add Article 1.5 (Commencing with Section 245) to Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 Of, the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 400 (2011-2012) MaSupportNo
Existing law authorizes employers to provide their employees paid sick leave. This bill would provide that an employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year is entitled to… More
Existing law authorizes employers to provide their employees paid sick leave. This bill would provide that an employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year is entitled to paid sick days, as defined, which shall be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked. An employee would be entitled to use accrued sick days beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment. The bill would require employers to provide paid sick days, upon the request of the employee, for diagnosis, care, or treatment of health conditions of the employee or an employee’s family member, or for leave related to domestic violence or sexual assault. An employer would be prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against an employee who requests paid sick days. The bill would require employers to satisfy specified posting and notice and recordkeeping requirements. The bill would also make conforming changes. This bill would require the Labor Commissioner to administer and enforce these requirements, including the promulgation of regulations, investigation, mitigation, and relief of violations of these requirements. This bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to impose specified administrative fines for violations and would authorize an aggrieved person, the commissioner, the Attorney General, or an entity a member of which is aggrieved to bring an action to recover specified civil penalties against an offender, as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. The bill would specify that it does not apply to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement that provides for paid sick days, nor does it lessen any other obligations of the employer to employees. This bill would further specify that it does not apply to employees in the construction industry covered by a collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly waives the requirements of this article in clear and unambiguous terms. However, the bill would specify that it applies to certain public authorities, established to deliver in-home supportive services, except where a collective bargaining agreement provides for an incremental wage increase sufficient to satisfy the bill’s requirements for accrual of sick days. Hide
SB 104 (2011-2012) SteinbergSupportNo
An Act to Amend Sections 226, 233, and 234 Of, and to Add Article 1.5 (Commencing with Section 245) to Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 Of, the Labor Code, Relating to Employment. AB 1000 (2009-2010) MaSupportNo
Existing law authorizes employers to provide their employees paid sick leave. This bill would provide that an employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year is entitled to… More
Existing law authorizes employers to provide their employees paid sick leave. This bill would provide that an employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year is entitled to paid sick days, as defined, which shall be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked. An employee would be entitled to use accrued sick days beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment. The bill would require employers to provide paid sick days, upon the request of the employee, for diagnosis, care, or treatment of health conditions of the employee or an employee’s family member, or for leave related to domestic violence or sexual assault. An employer would be prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against an employee who requests paid sick days. The bill would require employers to satisfy specified posting and notice and recordkeeping requirements. The bill would also make conforming changes. This bill would require the Labor Commissioner to administer and enforce these requirements, including the promulgation of regulations, investigation, mitigation, and relief of violations of these requirements. This bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to impose specified administrative fines for violations and would authorize an aggrieved person, the commissioner, the Attorney General, or an entity a member of which is aggrieved to bring an action to recover specified civil penalties against an offender, as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. The bill would specify that it does not apply to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement that provides for paid sick days, nor does it lessen any other obligations of the employer to employees. This bill would further specify that it does not apply to employees in the construction industry covered by a collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly waives the requirements of this article in clear and unambiguous terms. However, the bill would specify that it applies to certain public authorities, established to deliver in-home supportive services, except where a collective bargaining agreement provides for an incremental wage increase sufficient to satisfy the bill’s requirements for accrual of sick days. Hide