AB 2016 — Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004: civil actions.
Last action — In committee: Set, second hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2017-2018 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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
(1) The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (act) authorizes an aggrieved employee who complies with specified notice and filing requirements to bring a civil action to recover specified civil penalties that would otherwise be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (agency) . The act requires that the aggrieved employee or representative give written notice, as provided, to the agency and the employer of the specific provisions of the Labor Code alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation. This bill would instead require the notice to include a statement setting forth the relevant facts, legal contentions, and authorities supporting each alleged violation and an estimate of the number of current and former employees against whom the alleged violation or violations were committed and on whose behalf relief is sought. If the aggrieved employee or representative seeks relief on behalf of 10 or more employees, the bill would require that the notice be verified in a manner prescribed by other law and that a copy of the proposed complaint be attached to the notice. By requiring the notice to be verified as provided, thereby expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The act provides an employer a right to cure violations under its provisions before the aggrieved employee may bring a civil action. The act excludes from the right to cure various specified violations and other specified health and safety violations. The act requires the employer to cure a violation within 33 calendar days of the postmark date of the notice sent by the aggrieved employee or representative. This bill would instead exclude only the health and safety violations from the right to cure provisions. The bill would also extend the period of time in which the employer may cure the violation from 33 to 65 calendar days. (3) The act provides that an employee who prevails in an action under its provisions is entitled to recover his or her filing fees and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Existing law provides that civil penalties may be assessed against the employer, as provided. This bill would provide that an aggrieved employee may be awarded civil penalties based only upon a violation by the employer actually suffered by that employee. (4) 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
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removed1 line(s) added, 1 removed.
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBillText Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
View plain text versions (2)
- Introduced 02/05/18 - Introduced Current pdf February 05, 2018
- AB2016 View text html
Action History
-
In committee: Set, second hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
-
Referred to Coms. on L. & E. and JUD.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 8.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Mike Fong · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Fong, Mike Democratic
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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 29% | 71% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Nay |
| Thurmond | — | Nay |
| Gonzalez Fletcher | — | Nay |
| Mathis | — | Yea |
| McCarty | — | Nay |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Nay |
| Flora, Heath | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 86% | 0% | 0% | 14% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Gonzalez Fletcher | — | Yea |
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Mathis | — | Yea |
| McCarty | — | Not Voting |
| Thurmond | — | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Flora, Heath | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 2016 do?
- (1) The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (act) authorizes an aggrieved employee who complies with specified notice and filing requirements to bring a civil action to recover specified civil penalties that would otherwise be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (agency) . The act requires that the aggrieved employee or representative give written notice, as provided, to the agency and the employer of the specific provisions of the Labor Code alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation. This bill would instead require the notice to include a statement setting forth the relevant facts, legal contentions, and authorities supporting each alleged violation and an estimate of the number of current and former employees against whom the alleged violation or violations were committed and on whose behalf relief is sought. If the aggrieved employee or representative seeks relief on behalf of 10 or more employees, the bill would require that the notice be verified in a manner prescribed by other law and that a copy of the proposed complaint be attached to the notice. By requiring the notice to be verified as provided, thereby expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The act provides an employer a right to cure violations under its provisions before the aggrieved employee may bring a civil action. The act excludes from the right to cure various specified violations and other specified health and safety violations. The act requires the employer to cure a violation within 33 calendar days of the postmark date of the notice sent by the aggrieved employee or representative. This bill would instead exclude only the health and safety violations from the right to cure provisions. The bill would also extend the period of time in which the employer may cure the violation from 33 to 65 calendar days. (3) The act provides that an employee who prevails in an action under its provisions is entitled to recover his or her filing fees and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Existing law provides that civil penalties may be assessed against the employer, as provided. This bill would provide that an aggrieved employee may be awarded civil penalties based only upon a violation by the employer actually suffered by that employee. (4) 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 AB 2016?
- AB 2016 is sponsored by Fong, Mike (Democratic).
- What is the current status of AB 2016?
- This bill died with 2017-2018 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 AB 2016?
- Track AB 2016 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 2016
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.
Stay ahead of AB 2016
Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →