BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                          SB 118
                                                          Page  1

SENATE THIRD READING
SB 118 (Hayden)
As Amended June 16, 1999
Majority vote 

  SENATE VOTE  :21-13  
  
 LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT            6-3                 APPROPRIATIONS  
                    14-7        
  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
|Ayes:|Steinberg, Gallegos,      |Ayes:|Migden, Cedillo, Davis,   |
|     |Knox, Migden, Romero,     |     |Hertzberg, Kuehl, Papan,  |
|     |Shelley                   |     |Romero, Shelley,          |
|     |                          |     |Steinberg, Thomson,       |
|     |                          |     |Wesson, Wiggins, Wright,  |
|     |                          |     |Longville                 |
|     |                          |     |                          |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Margett, McClintock,      |Nays:|Brewer, Ackerman,         |
|     |Oller                     |     |Ashburn, Battin,          |
|     |                          |     |Maldonado, Runner, Zettel |
|     |                          |     |                          |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
  SUMMARY  :   Provides that an employee may take family care and  
medical leave to care for a grandparent or sibling, or domestic  
partner, as defined, as well as an adult child, who has a serious  
health condition or to care for 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.  Specifically,  this bill  :

1)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; and,








                                                          SB 118
                                                          Page  2

   e)   Both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership  
     with the employer.

2)Revises the definition of family care and medical leave to  
  include, in addition to leave to care for a parent or a spouse,  
  leave to care for a grandparent, sibling, or domestic partner  
  who has a serious health condition.

3)Provides for leave to care for an individual who depends on the  
  employee for immediate care and support who shares a common  
  residence with the employee and who has a serous health  
  condition.

4)Permits an employee to utilize leave under the California Family  
  Rights Act (CFRA) for care of any adult child, by removing the  
  limitation that an adult child be a dependent.



  EXISTING LAW  :

1)Provides, under CFRA, the right of an eligible employee to take  
  up to 12 weeks of family care and medical leave:  a) in  
  connection with the birth or adoption or serious health  
  condition of the employee's child; b) to care for a parent or  
  spouse who has a serious health condition; or, c) because of the  
  employee's own serious health condition.  To qualify under CFRA,  
  an employee must have more than one year of service with the  
  employer and must have worked at least 1,250 hours during the  
  previous 12-month period.

2)Provides under CFRA, that a "child" of the employee must be a  
  minor under 18 years of age or an adult dependent.

  FISCAL EFFECT  :   According to the Assembly Appropriations  
Committee analysis, no state costs.  The Department of Personnel  
Administration reports that existing collective bargaining  
agreements between the state and its represented employees already  
provide for this benefit.

  COMMENTS  :   

1)According to the author and supporters of this bill, under  
  current law, unmarried partners, siblings, and others who are  
  primary caregivers are precluded from taking unpaid leave to  
  provide care.  Many families' caregiving needs are now being met  







                                                          SB 118
                                                          Page  3

  by family members who also are holding down jobs.  This has  
  fueled the rising need among employees for workplace policies  
  that enable 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.

  They site a report of the Commission on Family and Medical Leave  
  at Cornell University which found that the federal Family  
  Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is working for millions of workers and  
  their families.  The great majority of companies reported no or  
  only minor new costs.  Some businesses also indicated they have  
  seen a positive benefit from these policies in creased  
  productivity and lower worker turnover.

2)Opponents state that this bill 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.

  Opponents also state that this bill would impose a significant  
  burden on employers because it is overly broad and lacks any  
  definitions or specific requirements on how one qualifies for  
  family care and medical leave.  It 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.

  Analysis Prepared by  :    Ralph Lightstone / L. & E. /  
(916)319-2091 
                                                        FN: 0002370