BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 654
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
654 (Jackson)
As Amended August 18, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: (vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Labor |4-2 |Thurmond, Chu, Lopez, |Patterson, |
| | |McCarty |O'Donnell |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |12-5 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Gallagher, |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Jones, Obernolte, |
| | |Calderon, Eggman, |Wagner |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago, Wood, Chau | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Enacts the "New Parent Leave Act" to, among other
things, require an employer of 20 or more employees to allow
SB 654
Page 2
eligible employees to take up to six weeks of job-protected
parental leave to bond with a new child. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Defines "employer" to mean either of the following:
a) A person who directly employs (within 75 miles of the
worksite) 20 or more persons to perform services for a wage
or salary.
b) The state and any political subdivision of the state and
cities.
2)Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to
refuse to allow an employee, with more than 12 months and at
least 1,250 hours of service with the employer, to take up to
six weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within
one year of the child's birth, adoption or foster care
placement.
3)Requires the employer to provide a guarantee of employment in
the same or comparable position upon return, as specified.
4)Provides that the employee may utilize accrued vacation pay,
paid sick time, other accrued paid time off, or other paid or
unpaid time off negotiated with the employer, during the
period of parental leave.
5)Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to
refuse to maintain and pay for continued group health coverage
for eligible employees who take parental leave at the same
level and under the same conditions that would have been
SB 654
Page 3
provided of the employee had continued to work during the
duration of the leave.
6)Specifies that an employee is entitled to take Pregnancy
Disability Leave, in addition to the leave provided in this
bill, if the employee is otherwise qualified for that leave.
7)Provides that this bill does not apply to an employee subject
to both the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the
federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
8)Provides that in any case in which two employees who are
entitled to leave for the same birth, adoption or foster care
placement are employed by the same employer, the employer is
not required, but may elect, to grant simultaneous leave to
both employees.
9)Provides that the basic minimum duration of the leave shall be
two weeks. However, an employer may grant requests for
additional occasions of leave lasting less than two weeks.
10)Provides that leave under this bill shall run concurrently
with parental leave taken pursuant to a specified provision of
existing law applicable to certain certificated school
employees.
11)Provides that this bill shall become operative on January 1,
2018.
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 (DFEH) of
SB 654
Page 4
approximately $190,000 in the first year and $170,000 on going,
to process complaints annually. Using CFRA complaints as a
point of reference, DFEH estimates they could receive 300-400
complaints and would need two consultants to process these
complaints.
COMMENTS: This bill would establish the New Parent Leave Act
under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and
make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, as
defined, to refuse to allow an employee to take up to six weeks
of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of
the child's birth, adoption, or foster care placement. This
bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to maintain
and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee
who takes this leave.
According to the author, under current law, only those who work
for an employer of 50 or more are eligible for job protected
parental leave under California law. That leaves many new
parents with an impossible choice between the wellbeing of his
or her new child and his or her family's financial security.
Opponents argue that this bill will overwhelm small employers,
and insist that California already imposes a list of
family-friendly leaves of absences on employers. They assert
that imposing another six week leave of absence, targeted
specifically at small employers, is simply too much for
employers to bear. Finally, opponents assert that this bill
exposes employers to costly litigation.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN:
0004923
SB 654
Page 5