BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 592
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 592 (Lara) - As Amended: April 25, 2011
Policy Committee: Labor and
Employment Vote: 5-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits employers from interfering with, or
restraining an employee's exercise or attempted exercise of his
or her rights under the state's medical leave law.
Specifically, this bill:
Prohibits an employer from interfering with, or restraining, a
pregnant employee's exercise or attempted exercise of her right
to take pregnancy disability leave, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible costs to the Department of Fair Employment Housing
(DFEH) to enforce this measure. DFEH reports they currently
investigate complaints related to pregnancy disability leave
(PDL) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).
COMMENTS
1)Background . Existing law establishes the CFRA, which requires
employers with 50 or more employees to provide, upon request,
up to 12 weeks of protected unpaid leave during any 12-month
period for specified purposes, including childbirth.
Statute also provides an employee disabled by pregnancy,
childbirth, or a related medical condition to take PDL for
reasonable period of time not to exceed four months.
Current anti-discrimination statute also prohibits an employer
from refusing to hire or employ a person based on specified
characteristics, including but not limited to, a person's sex
AB 592
Page 2
and/or his or her medical condition. Furthermore, statute
defines "sex" as it relates to pregnancy, childbirth, and
medical conditions related to the aforementioned.
2)Purpose . According to the author, "As written, California's
PDL and CFRA do not specifically recognize 'interference' with
an employee's right to leave as a basis for liability. As a
result, some courts have found that an employer in California
who interferes with an eligible employee's right to take
protected leave is not in violation of the law as long as the
employer does not actually 'refuse' the employee the right to
take leave. For example, an employer who 'writes up' a woman
for taking protected leave, or for asking for such leave, was
recently found to have interfered with her right to leave, yet
was not found liable. Such inconsistency impairs a mother's
ability to take protected leave. Some courts have not
recognized interference as an independent cause of action,
resulting in inconsistent decisions and confusion for
employees and employers alike." This bill seeks to clarify
current law by prohibiting employers from interfering with, or
restraining an employee's exercise or attempted exercise of
his or her rights under the state's medical leave law.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081