BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    




                                                                  AB 849
                                                                  Page A
          Date of Hearing:   May 6, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Kevin De Leon, Chair

                AB 849 (Swanson) - As Introduced:  February 26, 2009 

          Policy Committee:                              Labor and  
          Employment   Vote:                            5-2

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              

           SUMMARY  

          This bill amends the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) by  
          expanding permissible family and medical leave to cover care for  
          an independent adult child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild,   
          domestic partner, or parent-in-law with a serious health  
          condition.
           
          FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Annual costs of $200,000 in 2007-08, and $400,000 thereafter,  
            to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), from  
            an increased number of complaints it would investigate each  
            year.

          2)One-time costs of $35,000 for distribution of revised  
            materials to employers regarding expanded leave rights.

          3)Unknown but potentially significant costs to the state, as the  
            employer of about 210,000 individuals who would receive  
            expanded leave rights.

            As an illustration, if the bill raised the number of state  
            workers taking family or medical leave-currently about 12,000  
            per year--by 2,000 and the added overtime, training and  
            related costs associated with replacing the workers were 10%  
            of pay, the annual state costs would be about $700,000.
           

           COMMENTS
           
           1)Rationale.  Supporters assert that this bill is necessary to  









                                                                  AB 849
                                                                  Page B
            address the reality of today's familial dynamics in  
            California. They indicate that current law's narrow definition  
            of family excludes precludes individuals from caring for their  
            loved ones without jeopardizing their long-term financial  
            security.

           2)Existing Law  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. These  
            include: childbirth; placement of a child with respect to  
            adoption or foster care; care of a parent, spouse or child  
            with a serious health condition; or because of the employee's  
            own serious health condition.

            Current law defines a child for this purpose to include a  
            biological child, adoptive child, stepchild or, a legal ward  
            who is under the age of 18 or is an adult dependent child. It  
            defines parents to include biological, foster or adoptive  
            parent, a stepparent, or a legal guardian.

            Employees seeking medical leave must provide the employer with  
            reasonable advance notice of the leave, if foreseeable. It  
            also authorizes an employer to require that an employee  
            request for leave for a serious condition be certified by a  
            health care provider, and includes a process for an employer  
            to contest the validity of the certification. 

           3)Opponents  argue that this bill is too broad an expansion and,  
            particularly in this poor economic environment, and could pose  
            considerable problems for smaller and mid-sized companies.  
            Employers facing requests for leave must temporarily fill the  
            vacancy, train a temporary person, and keep the position open.  
            They also contend that the changes will potentially expose  
            businesses to additional lawsuits.
                
          4)Previous legislation. .  This bill is identical to AB 537  
            (Swanson) from 2007.  AB 537 was vetoed by Governor  
            Schwarzenegger, who stated that the bill was too  
            expansive and failed to recognize the need for reform in  
            existing law. This bill is also similar to SB 300 (Kuehl)  
            as introduced in 2005.  SB 300 was held in this committee  
            at the request of the author.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081