New Laws Impact Your Rights at Work, Including the Equal Pay Act

All of the new laws were effective on Jan. 1, 2016, unless otherwise noted.

Wage & Hour

California Fair Pay Act – SB 358

 Governor Brown has referred to this new law as “the strongest equal pay law in the nation,” and we think he’s right on the money. Amending California’s existing equal pay law, the new Fair Pay Act lowers the burden of proof for plaintiffs claiming gender-discriminatory pay practices, by prohibiting an employer from paying lower wage rates for “substantially similar” work, rather than “equal” work as used in existing law. The Fair Pay Act also increases the burden of proof for employers in defending such claims, requiring employers to directly demonstrate that a wage differential is based on a bona fide factor other than the employee’s gender. Notably, the new law provides broader coverage than its federal counterpart, the Equal Pay Act (29 USC § 206(d)). Unlike the Equal Pay Act, California’s Fair Pay Act even provides employees an ability to challenge their pay based on wages paid to employees at other work locations of the same employer. 

PAGA Amendments  – AB 1506

 Amendments to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), which are effective immediately, provide some welcome relief to employers relating to claims under Labor Code § 2699. Based on the amendment, employers now have  a limited right to cure a violation of failing to provide its employees with a wage statement containing the inclusive dates of the pay period and the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer.

Expanded Labor Commissioner Enforcement Powers  – SB 588 and AB 970

 In SB 588, the California legislature authorized the Labor Commissioner to file a lien on real estate, or a levy on an employer’s property, or impose a stop order on an employer’s business to assist an employee in collecting unpaid wages where there is a judgment against the employer. Additionally, employers, or individuals acting on behalf of employers, who violate any provision regulating minimum wages or hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, or who violate other related provisions of law, may be held liable as the employer for such violation. A bond of up to $150,000 may be required of an employer who does not promptly pay a judgment for unpaid wages.

In AB 970, the California legislature authorized the Labor Commissioner to issue citations to enforce local minimum wage and overtime laws.

IWC Wage Orders 4-2001 and 5-2001 and Health Care Employees – SB 327

 In an effort to negate the California Court of Appeal opinion in Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, 234 Cal. App. 4th 285 (2015), the California legislature enacted SB 327, making meal period waivers for health care employees valid and enforceable (reaffirming the validity of Section 11(D) of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 4-2001 and 5-2001).

Piece-Rate Compensation – AB 1513

 The California legislature clarified the statutory requirements for piece-rate compensation and provided an affirmative defense and safe harbor for employers who, by Dec. 15, 2016, fully compensate their specified employees for all under-compensated or uncompensated rest periods, recovery periods, or unproductive time between July 1, 2012 and Dec. 31, 2015.

Kin Care:  More Kin & More Care – SB 579

 This Act was amended to better coordinate with California’s paid sick leave law. Effective Jan. 1, employees may take kin care leave to care for grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings. Also, the amendment clarifies and expands the reasons an employee may take for leave. While the prior version covered “leave to attend to an illness,” the new version covers:

◾ the diagnosis, care, or treatment for an existing health condition, or for preventive care (prior law specified “illness” only)

◾ certain absences resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking

This is meaningful when employers offer more generous sick leave (or PTO) than the sick leave law requires.  Now, employees can use up to one-half a year’s sick leave/PTO accrual for, basically, the same purposes as the sick leave law with the same protections against negative repercussions as the sick leave law creates.

Leave & Benefits

Paid Sick Leave Amendments – AB 304

 Last year, the California legislature created California’s paid sick leave (PSL) obligations, which applies to most California employers. The provisions took effect on July 1, 2015. Quickly thereafter, however, the California legislature made some fixes to the original law. These fixes took effect July 13, 2015 and clarified the following points:

◾ An employee must work for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year of the commencement of employment to be eligible to use PSL.

◾ Allow for alternative accrual methods for all leave banks.

◾ “Grandfather” in leave banks existing as of Jan. 1, 2015.

◾ Allow employers with unlimited or undefined leave banks to indicate “unlimited” on the employee’s itemized wage statement.

◾ Allow employers to calculate the rate of pay for employees using any of three methods.

◾ Make other clarifications and exclusions from the PSL law, and delay its effective date for some employers.

Family School Partnership Act – SB 579

 The school-related leave law is expanded to broaden the reasons employees may take job-protected leave from work without the fear of reprisal by allowing workers to take time off work to: (1) find, enroll, or re-enroll children in a school or with a licensed child care provider, and (2) to address a child care provider or school emergency.

Grocery Store Workers Protection – AB 359 and 897

 Certain large grocery store establishments now have obligations to retain certain grocery store workers for a limited period of time following the sale of the grocery store to another entity.

Discrimination and Retaliation Laws

New California laws extend employee protection in both the retaliation and discrimination context.

California law protects employees from retaliation and discrimination based on the employee having engaged in protected conduct. AB 1509 amends Labor Code section 98.6, 1102.5, 2810.3, and 6310, and extends that protection with regard to retaliation by extending it to a family member of a person who engaged in, or was perceived to engage in, the protected conduct. The bill also gives an exemption to household goods carriers from the client, employer and labor contractor liability provisions in this law.

Meanwhile, AB 987 extends retaliation and discrimination protections under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to include employees requesting accommodation based on disability or religious beliefs, regardless of whether the request was ultimately granted. The purpose of the law is to clarify part of the holding in the published decision Rope v. Auto-Clor Sys. Of Washington, Inc., 220 Cal. App. 4th 635 (2013).

Government Contractors and Prevailing Wages

New laws also expanded the definition of “public works” in the prevailing wage context.  AB 219 expanded the “public works” definition to include hauling and delivery of ready-mixed concrete. The law also provides that the entity engaged in the hauling and delivery of ready-mixed concrete is considered a subcontractor for the purpose of Labor Code section 1720.9. The law goes into effect on July 1, 2016.

AB 852 expanded the “public works” definition to include work (i.e. construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work) done under a private contract on a most general acute care hospitals under certain conditions. The law contains a limited exception for rural general acute care hospitals, where the project is funded at least in part with proceeds of conduit revenue bonds issued by a public agency.

SB 350 expanded the “public works” definition to include work (i.e. construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work) on projects involving California’s electric transmission system pursuant to the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. Such projects will now be subject to the prevailing wage laws.

AB 327 extended to Jan. 1, 2024 the sunset date for the statutory exemption of paying volunteers a prevailing wage on public works projects.



A number of changes to California Employment Law have taken effect or were recently amended. The laws are summarized below. If you are experiencing difficulties at work regarding these situations, or would like to speak with an attorney regarding your employment rights, please give us a call.

Changes to the new law regarding Paid Sick Leave include requirements that:

-An employee must work for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year of the commencement of employment to be eligible to use PSL.

-Allow for alternative accrual methods for all leave banks.

-“Grandfather” in leave banks existing as of January 1, 2015.

-Allow employers with unlimited or undefined leave banks to indicate “unlimited” on the employee’s itemized wage statement.

-Allow employers to calculate the rate of pay for employees using any of three methods.

-Make other clarifications and exclusions from the PSL law, and delay its effective date for some employers.

California’s equal pay statute, first enacted in 1949, was significantly modified to lower the burden of proof for plaintiff’s claims, to greatly increase the burden of proof for an employer’s defenses, and to allow employees to ask other employees about the amount of their wages for the purpose of ascertaining whether there may be a factual basis for an equal pay claim.  Governor Brown has referred to the new law as “the strongest equal pay law in the nation.”

Employment retaliation protections are extended to an employee who is a family member of a person who engaged in, or is perceived to have engaged in, legally protected conduct. This bill also exempts household goods carriers from the client employer and labor contractor liability provisions in this law.

Employers are prohibited from retaliating or otherwise discriminating against an employee for requesting accommodation of his or her disability or religious beliefs, regardless of whether the accommodation request was ultimately granted.  The new law is intended to clarify a portion of the holding in the published decision of Rope v. Auto-Clor System of Washington, Inc. 220 Cal. App. 4th 635 (2013).

The Labor Commissioner is authorized to file a lien on real estate, or a levy on an employer’s property, or impose a stop order on an employer’s business in order to assist an employee in collecting unpaid wages where there is a judgment against the employer. Any employer, or individual acting on behalf of an employer, who violates any provision regulating minimum wages or hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, or who violates other related provisions of law may be held liable as the employer for such violation. A bond of up to $150,000 may be required of an employer who does not promptly pay a judgment for unpaid wages.

The Labor Commissioner will have the authority to issue a citation to enforce local minimum wage and overtime laws, including against an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer for violations of existing law related to reimbursements for expenses.

The duration of the “disability benefit period” is extended from 14 days to 60 days.

Two statutory provisions containing the term “alien,” used to describe any person who is not born in or a fully naturalized citizen of the United States, will be deleted from the Labor Code.

The Family School Partnership Act is expanded to broaden the authorized reasons for which an employee can take job-protected time off of work without the fear of discrimination or discharge by allowing workers to take time off work to: (1) find, enroll, or re-enroll his or her child in a school or with a licensed child care provider, and (2) to address a child care provider or school emergency, as defined.  (SB 579; amends Labor Code sections 230.8 and 233).

Certain grocery stores that are sold to another entity will have specified obligations to retain grocery workers for a limited period of time.

The definition of an “unlawful employment practice” is expanded to prohibit an employer or any other person or entity from using the E-Verify system at a time or in a manner not required by federal law, or not authorized by a federal agency memorandum of understanding, to check the employment authorization status of an existing employee or an applicant who has not received an offer of employment. There is a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation of the provisions of the bill.

Pedicab businesses might have the option of allowing alcohol to be served and consumed on board, if their employees are properly trained.

Pregnancy Discrimination — What is it? 

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate because of “race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation.”  This includes “pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical condition.” Pregnancy treated the same as sex discrimination under California law. In California, it is unlawful for an employer to:

Refuse to hire or employ the applicant;
Refuse to select the applicant or employee for a training program leading to employment or promotion (unless the employer has less than 15 employees);
Refuse to promote the employee;
Bar or to discharge the applicant or employee from employment or from a training program leading to employment or promotion;
Refuse to provide health benefits for pregnancy if the employer provides such benefits for other temporary disabilities (unless the employer has less than 15 employees);
Discriminate against the applicant or employee in terms, conditions or privileges of employment (unless the employer has less than 15 employees);
Harass the applicant or employee because of pregnancy;
Retaliate against the employee because of pregnancy or because that employee has exercised her right to take a pregnancy disability leave or transfer;
Refuse to accommodate the employee who is temporarily disabled by pregnancy to the same extent that other temporarily disabled employees are accommodated under the employer’s policy, practice or collective bargaining agreement;
Refuse to transfer the employee affected by pregnancy;
Refuse to grant the employee disabled by pregnancy a pregnancy disability leave.


Employer’s Statutory Duty to Reasonably Accommodate
An employer must provide a pregnant employee with a reasonable accommodation. Depending on the particular circumstances, “reasonable” accommodations may include, for example, a leave of absence, an intermittent leave schedule, a transfer to another location, or a transfer to a less strenuous position.


Pregnancy Disability Leave in California
The California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL) applies to employers who employ five or more employees, and applies to all employees, irrespective of the amount of time employed. It mandates that an employer must provide for up to four-months of protected leave per pregnancy, that can be taken on a continual basis, or in smaller increments, as needed. PDLL leave is unpaid, unless available paid time off is taken (e.g. vacation, paid sick time, or paid personal time off) and/or unless disability benefits are available. Because the PDLL is part of the FEHA, the same procedures and remedies that apply in FEHA discrimination cases apply in PDLL cases.

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) applies to employers with 50 or more employees, and to employees employed for at least 12 months, and for more than 1250 hours. The FMLA allows up to 12 workweeks of leave per leave year for an employee who is unable to perform the essential functions of his or her position because of a serious health condition. A “serious health condition” under the FMLA also includes any period of incapacity due to pregnancy, or for prenatal care. Both parents are entitled to a combined total of 12 weeks FMLA leave for the birth of a child. The mother can use FMLA leave for prenatal care and any incapacity relating to pregnancy, as well as for childbirth and any serious health condition following childbirth. The father can use FMLA leave for birth of the child and to care for his pregnant spouse if she is incapacitated.

The PDLL and the FMLA run concurrently. Therefore, an employee taking PDLL leave cannot request an additional 12 weeks of FMLA leave. The employee may, however, take an additional 12 weeks under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), since the PDLL and CFRA do not run concurrently. CFRA applies to employers with 50 or more employees, and to employees employed for at least 12 months and for more than 1250 hours.


You have a right to reinstatement after you take pregnancy leave
The FEHA also applies to reinstatement rights unless: 1) the position is no longer available due to reasons unrelated to the employee’s leave, or 2) the employer can establish that each means of holding open the position would have substantially undermined the employer’s ability to operate the business safely and efficiently. If either of the exceptions apply, and the same position is no longer available, the employee has the right to reinstatement to any available comparable position.


Retaliation against an employee for exercising her rights is against the law
If you experienced retaliation in the workplace as a result of exercising your rights, or for complaining to your employer about your legally protected rights, you may have a case for retaliation.

To establish a valid case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that she engaged in a protected activity, that she was thereafter subjected to an adverse employment action by her employer, and that there was a causal link between the two incidents. Retaliation is “adverse treatment that is reasonably likely to impair a reasonable employee’s job performance or prospects for advancement or promotion.” Where a retaliatory course of conduct is alleged, a series of separate retaliatory acts collectively may constitute an “adverse employment action,” although none of the acts individually is actionable. So, we look at everything that has happened, even if the isolated instances may not individually give rise to a claim independently.

The FEHA provides for detailed procedures and remedies to deter and redress unlawful employment practices, such as pregnancy discrimination and harassment. Be aware that you have only one year from the time of the discriminatory action to file a complaint.


For further information on this topic, please give us a call at 805.845.9630. We stand ready to fight for your rights at work.


The Senate passed a historic piece of gay rights legislation that would ban workplace discrimination against gay and transgender employees. A 64-32 vote, the passage of this legislation marks another milestone victory for the gay rights movement in America.


The 64 to 32 vote to approve the Employment Non-Discrimination Act marked the first time federal lawmakers had approved legislation to advance gay rights since repealing the military’s ban on gay men and lesbians in uniform in late 2010. Approval of the measure came two days after Illinois became the 15th state to legalize same-sex marriage and four months after the U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned federal recognition of legally married gay couples.

In October 2013, Governor Brown signed several significant bills that increase and protect the earnings of low-wage and immigrant workers.  After years of stagnation and prior unsuccessful attempts, the state minimum wage will finally see an increase after the approval of AB 10 (Asm. Alejo).  The new law raises the $8 an hour minimum wage to $9 an hour, effective July 1, 2014, and from $9 an hour to $10 an hour, effective Jan. 1, 2016.

Domestic workers will also see an increase in wages after scoring a historic victory with AB 241 (Asm. Ammiano), known as the “Domestic Workers Bill of Rights.”  This law mandates overtime compensation for domestic workers in California who work over 9 hours in a day and over 45 hours in a week.

Bills to protect wages were also a highlight of this year’s legislative session.  SB 496 (Sen. Monning), signed by the Governor this year, makes it easier for workers to pursue a claim for unpaid wages by eliminating the threat of potentially ruinous liability if they ultimately do not succeed on their claim.

Car wash workers gained much-needed protections when Governor Brown eliminated the sunset date on one of the most effective tools for combating wage theft in the car wash industry.  AB 1387 (Asm. Hernandez) now permanently requires car washes to register and obtain a bond to fund an account for car wash workers who cannot collect their wages.

The Fair Paycheck Act, which would have helped all workers collect their unpaid wages, unfortunately suffered a defeat this year due to heavy lobbying by special interest groups in big business and banking.  This bill would have authorized an employee to record and enforce a wage lien upon an employer’s property.  Though unsuccessful, the Fair Paycheck campaign, led by a broad coalition of low wage worker advocates, will continue to fight and will make another legislative attempt next year.

AB 263 (Asm. Hernandez) and SB 666 (Sen. Steinberg) constitute a huge victory for low wage and immigrant workers. These bills protect and promote the rights of immigrant workers who suffer from pervasive abuse in the workplace.  The bills help workers assert their rights by clarifying that retaliation protected under Labor Code 98.6 broadly includes any adverse actions (including threats of deportation).  Additionally, these bills clarify that workers do not have to go through the cumbersome process of filing administrative complaints unless the Labor Code expressly requires it.  Another immigrant workers’ rights bill signed this year, AB 524 (Asm. Mullin), makes it a crime for employers or their attorneys to use threats of deportation to exploit immigrant workers.

Whistleblowers also receive some added protection under SB 496 (Sen. Wright), which expands Labor Code 1102.5 to cover workers who are preemptively fired before they can report any wrongdoing and to cover a broader range of disclosures.

SB 770 (Sen. Jackson) was the only family care bill signed by the Governor into law.  This bill expands the Paid Family Leave Program to provide wage replacement for workers taking care of seriously ill grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, and parents-in-law.

Governor Brown also signed several bills to help strengthen California’s workplace anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws.  He also signed bills that expand workplace protections for veterans and those in the military. Significantly, SB 400 not only prohibits discrimination against victims of domestic violence, it also requires employers to provide victims with reasonable accommodations.  The Governor also approved SB 292 (Sen. Corbett), which strengthens sexual harassment protections, particularly with same-sex harassment, by clarifying that harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire.

Former offenders will also find some added protections and help securing employment with the approval of AB 218 (Asm. Dickinson).  This new law prohibits state and local agencies from asking an applicant to disclose information regarding a criminal conviction until after the agency has first determined whether the applicant meets minimum qualifications for the position.

All of the bills signed this year will take effect January 1st of 2014 and represent huge victories for workers and working families in California.

As of today, the Governor has signed 8 significant employment-related bills into law, covering:


Minimum wage increase, from $8 to $10/hour, over two years

Change in definition of sexual harassment to provide broader protection for employees

Recovery of defense attorney’s fees in wage claims only if bad faith

Expansion of coverage of Paid Family Leave

Mandatory overtime for domestic workers who work over 9 hours/day or 45 hours/week

Criminal background checks for youth sports leaders

Employment contracts for minor actors

New penalties for violation of posting requirements for garment manufacturers


To view the signed bills, as well as the passed bills awaiting Governor Brown’s action, as well as failed bills, click here.  Governor Brown has until October 13 to act on bills awaiting signature. If you have questions on how these bills affect your rights, give us a call today.

On October 5, 2013, Governor Brown signed SB 666 (Steinberg) into law. SB 666 does the following:

It overturns MacDonald v. State of California (discussed here), in which the Court of Appeal held that an employee must exhaust the administrative remedy set forth in Labor Code section 98.7 before pursuing a civil claim for retaliatory discharge or wrongful termination in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 and retaliatory and discriminatory discharge in violation of Labor Code section 6310.


Significantly, the new law also makes it clear that an employer who retaliates or takes adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because he or she has engaged in protected conduct may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation.


The law also subjects attorneys to discipline for reporting or threatening to report the suspected immigration status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative action or his or her family member, to a federal, state, or local agency because the witness or party exercises or has exercised a right related to his or her employment. It also subjects certain licensed professionals and businesses to license suspension or revocation if the Labor Commissioner or a court determines that they have violated certain provisions of California law.

Further information on SB 666, including the text of the bill, is available here.

1) Increase in the State Minimum Wage

Governor Brown signed AB 10. This bill raises the minimum wage in two $1.00 increments, from the current $8 per hour rate to $9 per hour effective July 1, 2014. Then to $10 per hour effective January 1, 2016.

2) Paid Family Leave Coverage Expanded

SB 770 was also signed into law. This bill expands the familial relationships covered by California’s paid family leave program. Currently, employees who are permitted to take unpaid time off to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, domestic partner, or to bond with a minor child within one year of the birth, adoption or foster care placement of the child, can receive up to 6 weeks of wage replacement benefits under California’s family temporary disability (paid family leave) program. Beginning July 1, 2014, a seriously ill grandparent, grandchild, sibling and parent-in-law will also be included.

California has fee-shifting provision in place for claimants seeking unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime pay, by which the prevailing employee is entitled to attorney’s fees. Many employer defendants have sought to scare away a former employee plaintiff by “reminding” them that if the employee loses, the employer will go after them for their fees and costs. Many employees have considered the risk and opted not to pursue legitimate claims based on that fear.

Good news….

Effective January 1, 2014, Labor Code § 218.5 will provide that a prevailing employer can recover its defense costs only if it proves to the court that the employee brought the action “in bad faith.” “In bad faith” is not defined in the statute, but it will probably require that the employer prove that the employee knowingly filed a false claim purely withy the intent to harm their former employer.
The history behind the change reveals California’s long-established “pro-employee” position. Governor Brown signed the legislation, SB 462, making this change on August 26, 2013. The bill’s author, Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, stated that this amendment corrects “an historic injustice” and “brings California into conformity with the overwhelming majority of states in the country.
The amendment was prompted by a 2012 California Supreme Court ruling holding that a prevailing employer in a meal-rest penalties case could not recover attorneys’ fees because such penalties are not “wages” and the Labor Code statutes permit fee recovery only in actions involving wages. Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, 53 Cal. 4th 1244 (2012).

Although there was no applicable fee-shifting statute in Kirby, the case implied that if the claims had involved wages instead of penalties, an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing employer could have been appropriate. The reaction from SB 462′s sponsor — the California Employment Lawyers Association — was to try to protect plaintiff employees from that eventuality by requiring successful employers to prove bad faith. A true win for employee plaintiffs!

Un empleado puede tomar tiempo fuera del trabajo, sin miedo de perder su trabajo, para:
1. Permiso de ausencia para actividades honorables – Código laboral §§ 230.3-.4; 1501-1507.
Se requiere de los empleadores en California que dejen a los empleados tomar permiso de ausencia no pagado para servir como bomberos voluntarios, policía de reserva, personal de rescates de emergencia, o como miembro de la patrulla aeronáutica civil. Cualquier empleador que discrimine contra un empleado por tomar tiempo permitido bajo la ley es culpable de un delito menor criminal, y el empleado afectado tiene derecho a reincorporación, pagos perdidos y beneficios.

2. Permiso de ausencia para donar órganos o medula ósea – Código laboral §§ 1508-1513.
Los empleados tienen derecho a un permiso de ausencia pagado para donar un órgano o medula ósea. Si Ud. trabaja en un lugar que emplea 15 o más empleados y ha trabajado allí por los menos 90 días, tiene derecho a tomar hasta 5 días laborales pagados durante cualquier periodo de un año para donar medula ósea y hasta 30 días laborales pagados durante un periodo de un año para donar un órgano.
Se puede requerir, sin embargo, que Ud. use hasta dos semanas de ausencia médica pagada o tiempo de vacación acumulada. Al volver de la ausencia bajo estas provisiones, tiene derecho a su reincorporación en el mismo puesto o un puesto comparable en el trabajo.

3. Permiso de ausencia para ayudar en una aula. – Código laboral § 230.8.
Si Ud. es padre, guardián, o abuelo de la custodia y trabaja para un empleador que tiene 25 o más empleados, tiene derecho a tomar permiso de ausencia (o usar tiempo personal/de vacaciones) hasta 8 horas por mes y 40 horas por año escolar para participar en las actividades de la escuela o guardería de su niño. La pena por violar esta provisión es muy seria – empleados afectados pueden obtener restauración, pagos perdidos, beneficios y una pena civil de tres vecesla la cantidad de los pagos y beneficios perdidos.

4. Ausencia de embarazo –
En California, podría ser que no hay límite a la cantidad de tiempo que una empleada puede tomar en conexión con su embarazo y parto. Una decisión reciente por una corte apelativa de California aclara que le Ley de Discapacidad por Embarazo (PDLL), que permite hasta cuatro meses de ausencia por discapacidades relacionadas con el embarazo, “aumenta en vez de reemplaza” otras provisiones de discapacidad establecidas en el Acto de Igualdad en el Empleo y la Vivienda (FEHA), además de ausencia para unirse con un niño recien nacido bajo el CFRA. Esto significa que una empleada podría tener derecho a tomar hasta cuatro meses de permiso de ausencia bajo PDLL, hasta 12 semanas de ausencia bajo CFRA y cualquier otro tiempo como acomodación razonable bajo FEHA si la empleada todavía está discapacitada después de utilizar PDLL.

5. Ausencia para adictos y personas que necesitan apoyo para leer – Código laboral §§ 1025-26; 1041. Empleadores también se encuentran obligados a dejar a los empleados a tomar permiso de ausencia no pagado como “acomodación razonable” para participar en un programa de rehabilitación de alcohol o drogas, o programas de alfabetización de adultos si emplean a más que 25 empleados. El empleador también tiene que tomar pasos responsables para asegurar la privacidad de un empleado que le haya informado al empleador sobre su participación en dichos programas.

Employee Rights Law Firm Proudly Serving Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Ventura, Santa Maria, Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande & Pismo. © 2018 Adams Law, Santa Barbara, California