BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    ”

                                                                     SB 406

                                                                    Page  1


          406 (Jackson)

          As Amended  September 4, 2015

          Majority vote

          SENATE VOTE:  23-16

          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                   |Noes                 |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |Labor           |5-2  |Roger HernŠndez, Chu,  |Harper, Patterson    |
          |                |     |Low, McCarty, Thurmond |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |Appropriations  |12-5 |Gomez, Bloom, Bonta,   |Bigelow, Chang,      |
          |                |     |Calderon, Nazarian,    |Gallagher, Jones,    |
          |                |     |Eggman,                |Wagner               |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,        |                     |
          |                |     |Holden, Quirk, Rendon, |                     |
          |                |     |Weber, Wood            |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |


                                                                     SB 406

                                                                    Page  2

          SUMMARY:  Expands various provisions of law related to unpaid  
          family and medical leave under the California Family Rights Act  
          (CFRA).  Specifically, this bill:

          1)Amends the definition of "child" to include the son or  
            daughter of a domestic partner and deletes provisions  
            regarding the age and dependent status of a child.

          2)Expands permissible leave to include leave to care for a  
            sibling, grandparent, grandchild, parent-in-law, or domestic  
            partner with a serious health condition.

          3)Removes an exception when both parents are employed by the  
            same employer, thereby requiring the employer to grant each  
            employee up to 12 weeks of leave individually rather than  
            between both parents, as currently in existing law.

          4)Makes related and conforming changes.

          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, this bill would result in General Fund administrative  
          costs to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing of  
          approximately $700,000.  The impact to other state agencies is  
          expected to be minimal since the state generally provides this  
          benefit already.

          COMMENTS:  According to the author, this bill ensures that  
          eligible workers can keep their jobs when they need time off to  
          care for their families. Over 40% of the workforce is not  
          eligible for California Family Rights Act due to the law's  


                                                                     SB 406

                                                                    Page  3

          The current definition of family under CFRA includes minor or  
          adult dependent children, parents, spouses, and registered  
          domestic partners.  Recently, the definition of family members  
          for Paid Family Leave (PFL), a program that allows workers to  
          receive partial wage replacement benefits while taking care of  
          seriously ill family members, was expanded to include siblings,  
          grandparents, grandchildren, and parents-in-law.  This bill  
          seeks to include these family members under CFRA, allowing  
          employees to take job-protected leave when utilizing their PFL  
          benefits.  Currently, employees may receive this monetary  
          benefit when caring for these additional family members but risk  
          losing their jobs to provide such care.  This bill would also  
          allow for parents that are entitled to leave and employed by the  
          same employer to receive 12 weeks of family and medical leave  
          individually in connection with the birth, adoption, or foster  
          care of a child.

          According to supporters, the restrictions on family caregiving  
          under CFRA fail to account for the diversity of California  
          households and the importance of caregiving by extended family  
          members.  Supporters bring attention to various study findings  
          including: a study of Alzheimer's patients which found that 40%  
          of caregivers were not covered under the narrow definition of  
          family in CFRA, one study that found that nearly 20% of primary  
          caregivers for chronically disabled individuals are neither the  
          spouse nor the child of the person receiving care, and another  
          finding that one in twelve caregivers provides care to a  
          parent-in-law, grandparent, or grandparent-in-law. 

          Supporters argue that most leave taken under the CFRA is short,  
          minimizing the impact on employers.  They state that nearly half  
          of all leave taken is for 10 days or less.

          A coalition of employers, including the California Chamber of  
          Commerce, opposes this bill and argue that expanding the family  
          members for whom an employee may take a 12-week protected leave  


                                                                     SB 406

                                                                    Page  4

          of absence to care for to include a grandparent, a grandchild,  
          and siblings will negatively impact California employers.   
          Opponents also argue that California already has extensive  
          family-related protected leaves of absence and that this bill is  
          therefore unnecessary.

          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091  FN: