BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 118|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 118
Author: Hayden (D)
Amended: 5/25/99
Vote: 21
SENATE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 4-1, 4/14/99
AYES: Alarcon, Figueroa, Karnette, Solis
NOES: Mountjoy
NOT VOTING: Haynes, Morrow
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-5, 5/10/99
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Karnette,
Perata, Vasconcellos
NOES: Johnson, Kelley, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy
SUBJECT : Employment: family care and medical leave
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill allows an employee leave to care for a
grandparent, sibling, domestic partner or an individual who
depends on the employee for immediate care and support and
who has a serious health condition.
ANALYSIS : Existing law makes it an unlawful employment
practice for any employer to refuse to grant a request by
any employee with more than one year of service with the
employer and who has worked at least 1,250 hours during the
previous 12-month period, to take family care and medical
leave: (1) in connection with the birth or adoption or
serious health condition of the employee's child; (2) to
CONTINUED
SB 118
Page
2
care for a parent or spouse who has a serious health
condition, or; (3) because of the employee's own serious
health condition. The employer may refuse family care and
medical leave if the employer employs fewer than 50
employees within 75 miles of the employee's worksite.
This bill provides that an employee may take family care
and medical leave to care for a grandparent, sibling,
domestic partner or an individual who depends on the
employee for immediate care and support, who shares a
common residence with the employee, and who has a serious
health condition.
The bill provides that an employer may require an affidavit
that the employee qualifies for the leave. The bill
provides for damages to the employer, not to exceed $1,500,
if an employee is found to have filed a false affidavit.
The bill defines "domestic partners" to mean two adult
persons in a committed relationship of mutual caring where
all of the following conditions apply:
(a)Both persons share a common residence.
(b)Both persons agree to be responsible for each other's
basic living expenses during the domestic partnership.
(c)Neither person is married or a member of another
domestic partnership.
(d)Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
(e)Both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership
with the employer.
Prior Legislation
SB 1506 (Hayden), 1998 (failed passage on the Senate
Floor).
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
No state costs. According to the Department of Personnel
SB 118
Page
3
Administration, state law already allows such leaves at the
discretion of the appointing authority. Department of
Personnel Administration also reports that existing
collective bargaining agreements with the state provide
this benefit.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/25/99)
AIDS Project Los Angeles
American Cancer Society
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
California Alliance for Pride and Equality (CAPE)
California Association for the Education of Young Children
(CAEYC)
California Catholic Conference
California Church
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit
Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Federation of Business and Professional Women
California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Professional Firefighters (CPF)
California School Employees Association
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipe Trades Council
California Teachers Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Coalition of University Employees (CUE)
Communication Workers of America, District 9, AFL-CIO
E.J. Oshins
Election Committee of the County of Orange (ECCO)
Employment Law Center, Legal Aid Society of San Francisco
Engineers and Scientists of California, Local 20 IFPTE,
AFL-CIO
Equal Rights Advocates
Friends Committee on Legislation of California (FCL)
Gay and Lesbian Center
Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO
Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
SB 118
Page
4
Pilgrim Congregational Church/Rev. Ann R. Lougee
Region 8 State Council of the United Food and Commercial
Workers
Rolling Hills United Methodist Church
Tower Records
United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA)
Western State Council of Sheet metal Workers
Westin Bonaventure Hotel and Suites, Los Angeles County
129 individual letters
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/25/99)
Burkleo Roofing, Inc.
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers Association
Committee on Moral Concerns
DJB Liberty, Inc.
Gray Lift, Inc.
Heritage Estates, Inc.
Loar Ward Property Appraiser
N/S Corporation
New Life Christian School
Pacific Towing
The Sound Company
Tubular Specialties Mfg., Inc.
Valley Paper and Packing, Inc.
12 individual letters
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author and
supporters of this bill, under current law, unmarried
spouses, siblings, and others who are primary caregivers
are precluded from taking unpaid leave to provide care.
Many families' caregiving needs are now being met by family
members who also are holding down jobs. This has fueled
the rising need among employees for workplace policies that
unable them to meet the often competing needs of job and
home. Without the availability of job-protected family and
medical leave, employees often face the difficult choice of
returning to work prematurely, or giving up their jobs or
of not providing their families the care and support they
need. This bill corrects the inequity of excluding
domestic partners, siblings, and others who are primary
caregivers from the family and medical leave law.
SB 118
Page
5
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Chamber of
Commerce states that this measure provides new incentives
to sue employers for failing to grant "family leave" to
non-family members. Any employer who denies family leave
in violation of the law may be liable for compensatory
damages, punitive damages, court costs and attorney fees.
For this reason, the California Chamber of Commerce opposes
this bill.
The California Manufacturers Association states that the
bill is overly broad and is subject to abuse by employees
and would lead to increased litigation.
The Committee on Moral Concerns argues that "employers
should not be forced into the expense and inconvenience of
accommodating employees' non-legal relationships of
convenience. The historical family arrangement works best
for society. Struggling families do not need their tax
burden increased or their wages or benefits cut to support
employee's adult friends."
NC:sl 5/26/99 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****