California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 R cosponsors

SB 330 — Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, permits an aggrieved employee, on behalf of themselves and other current or former employees, to bring a civil action pursuant to specified procedures for a violation of a provision of the Labor Code that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Existing law imposes specified filing requirements on the aggrieved employee or representative in order to bring the action, including providing notice to the agency and the employer with the specific provisions of the Labor Code alleged to have been violated, and the facts and theories that support the alleged violations. Existing law provides an employer, for certain of those violations, a right to cure the violation within 33 days, as specified. For alleged violations of specified provisions of the Labor Code relating to safety in employment, existing law requires the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to investigate the allegations in the notice. This bill would require the notice, for alleged violations of the Labor Code other than those specified provisions relating to safety in employment, to instead include a statement setting forth the relevant facts, legal authorities, and authorities supporting each alleged violation. For those alleged violations that provide an employer a right to cure, the bill would require the notice to inform the employer of their right to cure the violation. The bill would also require the notice to include an estimate of the number of employees on whose behalf relief is being sought. The bill would require the aggrieved employee or representative, if that number of employees is 10 or more, to verify the notice under penalty of perjury, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make a conforming change. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. April 19 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 1. Noes 4. Page 832.) Reconsideration granted.

  3. Set for hearing April 19.

  4. Re-referred to Coms. on L., P.E. & R. and JUD.

  5. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  6. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  7. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 10.

  8. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 330 do?
Existing law, the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, permits an aggrieved employee, on behalf of themselves and other current or former employees, to bring a civil action pursuant to specified procedures for a violation of a provision of the Labor Code that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Existing law imposes specified filing requirements on the aggrieved employee or representative in order to bring the action, including providing notice to the agency and the employer with the specific provisions of the Labor Code alleged to have been violated, and the facts and theories that support the alleged violations. Existing law provides an employer, for certain of those violations, a right to cure the violation within 33 days, as specified. For alleged violations of specified provisions of the Labor Code relating to safety in employment, existing law requires the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to investigate the allegations in the notice. This bill would require the notice, for alleged violations of the Labor Code other than those specified provisions relating to safety in employment, to instead include a statement setting forth the relevant facts, legal authorities, and authorities supporting each alleged violation. For those alleged violations that provide an employer a right to cure, the bill would require the notice to inform the employer of their right to cure the violation. The bill would also require the notice to include an estimate of the number of employees on whose behalf relief is being sought. The bill would require the aggrieved employee or representative, if that number of employees is 10 or more, to verify the notice under penalty of perjury, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make a conforming change. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 330?
SB 330 is sponsored by Niello, Roger W. (Republican).
What is the current status of SB 330?
This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 330?
Track SB 330 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 330

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 330

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →