California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Enacted 3 D cosponsors

SB 63 — Unlawful employment practice: parental leave.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 686, Statutes of 2017.

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced December 22, 2016. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 82% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 12 sponsors

    1 primary, 11 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (3 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 10 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law, the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, or California Family Rights Act (CFRA) , makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, as defined, to refuse to grant a request by an eligible employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period (1) for reason of a child born to, adopted by, or placed for foster care with, the employee, (2) to care for the employee's parent or spouse who has a serious health condition, as defined, or (3) because the employee is suffering from a serious health condition rendering him or her unable to perform the functions of the job. Existing law prohibits an employer from refusing to allow a female employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take a leave for a reasonable time of up to 4 months before returning to work. Existing law also prohibits an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes that leave, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from refusing to allow an employee with more than 12 months of service with the employer, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, and who works at a worksite in which the employer employs at least 20 employees within 75 miles, to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of the child's birth, adoption, or foster care placement. The bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes this leave. The bill would allow the employer to recover coverage costs under specific circumstances. The bill would provide that it would not apply to an employee who is subject to both specified state law regarding family care and medical leave, and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Under the bill, if the employer employs both parents and they are entitled to leave pursuant to this bill for the same birth, adoption, or foster care placement, the parents' mandated parental leave would be capped at the amount granted to an employee by the bill. The bill would authorize the employer to grant simultaneous leave to these parents. This bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to hire, or from discharging, fining, suspending, expelling, or discriminating against, an individual for exercising the right to parental leave provided by this bill or giving information or testimony as to his or her own parental leave, or another person's parental leave, in an inquiry or proceeding related to rights guaranteed under this bill. The bill would additionally prohibit an employer from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this bill. The bill would require the Fair Employment and Housing Council, to the extent that state regulations interpreting CFRA are within the scope of, and not inconsistent with the bill or with other state law, to incorporate those regulations by reference to govern leave under the bill. Under existing law, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing is authorized to provide mediation services to parties involved in actions under its jurisdiction. This bill, until January 1, 2020, would require the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, upon receiving funding from the Legislature, to create a parental leave mediation pilot program, as specified. Under the pilot program, within 60 days of receipt of a right-to-sue notice, an employer may request all parties to participate in the department's Mediation Division Program. If the employer makes such a request, the bill would prohibit an employee from pursuing any civil action under these provisions until the mediation is complete, as defined, which would include an employee's election not to participate in mediation. The bill would provide that the employee's statute of limitations would be tolled during the course of the mediation, as specified.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 686, Statutes of 2017.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 25. Noes 13. Page 2843.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 51. Noes 15. Page 3207.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 6.) (September 1).

  11. July 19 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

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

  13. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) (June 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (June 21). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  15. Referred to Coms. on L. & E. and JUD.

  16. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  17. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 25. Noes 13. Page 1252.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  18. Published May 26 at 10 a.m.

  19. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  20. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 1177.) (May 25).

  21. Set for hearing May 25.

  22. April 24 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  23. Set for hearing April 24.

  24. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  25. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1. Page 625.) (April 4).

  26. Set for hearing April 4.

  27. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  28. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 4. Noes 1. Page 445.) (March 22).

  29. Set for hearing March 22.

  30. Referred to Coms. on L. & I.R. and JUD.

  31. Read first time.

  32. From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 26.

  33. Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 11 co-sponsors · 110 not signed on · 8 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Jackson

Co-sponsors (11)

Not signed on (110)

110 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 110 →

"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

Votes

Unfinished Business SB63 Jackson et al. Concurrence

Passed 25 Yea · 13 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 211301
Democratic 4001
Total 251302
% of votes cast 63%33%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Pan — Yea
Roth — Not Voting
Wilk — Nay
Dodd — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Allen — Yea
De León — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Newman — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Cannella — Nay
Fuller — Nay
Glazer — Nay
Bates — Nay
Moorlach — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Skinner — Yea
Vidak — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

SB 63 Jackson Senate Third Reading By GONZALEZ FLETCHER

Passed 51 Yea · 15 Nay · 13 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 3612010
Democratic 13002
Republican 2301
Total 5115013
% of votes cast 65%19%0%16%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Not Voting
Baker — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
Harper — Nay
Low — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Nazarian — Yea
Obernolte — Nay
Quirk — Not Voting
Steinorth — Not Voting
Voepel — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Not Voting
Gloria — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Chávez — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Weber — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Burke — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Frazier — Not Voting
Fong — Nay
Kiley — Nay
Salas — Not Voting
Levine — Yea
Gray — Not Voting
Mathis — Nay
Mayes — Not Voting
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Chau — Yea
Cooley — Nay
Cooper — Not Voting
Cunningham — Not Voting
Rendon — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wood — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Not Voting
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Not Voting
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Not Voting
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 10 Yea · 6 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7501
Democratic 3000
Republican 0100
Total 10601
% of votes cast 59%35%0%6%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Bocanegra — Nay
Fong — Nay
Gray — Not Voting
Chau — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Obernolte — Nay
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading SB63 Jackson et al.

Passed 25 Yea · 13 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 211301
Democratic 4001
Total 251302
% of votes cast 63%33%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Newman — Yea
Pan — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Vidak — Nay
Fuller — Nay
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Allen — Yea
De León — Yea
Monning — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Cannella — Nay
Galgiani — Yea
Glazer — Nay
Hernandez — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Bates — Nay
Dodd — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Moorlach — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Roth — Not Voting
Wilk — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4200
Democratic 1000
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Bates — Nay
Beall — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Beall — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

civil-rights 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 63 do?
Existing law, the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, or California Family Rights Act (CFRA) , makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, as defined, to refuse to grant a request by an eligible employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period (1) for reason of a child born to, adopted by, or placed for foster care with, the employee, (2) to care for the employee's parent or spouse who has a serious health condition, as defined, or (3) because the employee is suffering from a serious health condition rendering him or her unable to perform the functions of the job. Existing law prohibits an employer from refusing to allow a female employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take a leave for a reasonable time of up to 4 months before returning to work. Existing law also prohibits an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes that leave, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from refusing to allow an employee with more than 12 months of service with the employer, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, and who works at a worksite in which the employer employs at least 20 employees within 75 miles, to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of the child's birth, adoption, or foster care placement. The bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes this leave. The bill would allow the employer to recover coverage costs under specific circumstances. The bill would provide that it would not apply to an employee who is subject to both specified state law regarding family care and medical leave, and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Under the bill, if the employer employs both parents and they are entitled to leave pursuant to this bill for the same birth, adoption, or foster care placement, the parents' mandated parental leave would be capped at the amount granted to an employee by the bill. The bill would authorize the employer to grant simultaneous leave to these parents. This bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to hire, or from discharging, fining, suspending, expelling, or discriminating against, an individual for exercising the right to parental leave provided by this bill or giving information or testimony as to his or her own parental leave, or another person's parental leave, in an inquiry or proceeding related to rights guaranteed under this bill. The bill would additionally prohibit an employer from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this bill. The bill would require the Fair Employment and Housing Council, to the extent that state regulations interpreting CFRA are within the scope of, and not inconsistent with the bill or with other state law, to incorporate those regulations by reference to govern leave under the bill. Under existing law, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing is authorized to provide mediation services to parties involved in actions under its jurisdiction. This bill, until January 1, 2020, would require the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, upon receiving funding from the Legislature, to create a parental leave mediation pilot program, as specified. Under the pilot program, within 60 days of receipt of a right-to-sue notice, an employer may request all parties to participate in the department's Mediation Division Program. If the employer makes such a request, the bill would prohibit an employee from pursuing any civil action under these provisions until the mediation is complete, as defined, which would include an employee's election not to participate in mediation. The bill would provide that the employee's statute of limitations would be tolled during the course of the mediation, as specified.
Who sponsors SB 63?
SB 63 is sponsored by Atkins, Gonzalez Fletcher, Chiu, Friedman, Jackson, Leyva, Limón, Monique (Democratic), Reyes, Eloise Gómez (Democratic), Skinner, Thurmond, Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic), and Cristina Garcia.
What is the current status of SB 63?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced December 22, 2016. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 63?
Track SB 63 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 63

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 63

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →