California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

AB 685 — COVID-19: imminent hazard to employees: exposure: notification: serious violations.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 84, Statutes of 2020.

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 15, 2019. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 72% · 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.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 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

(1) Existing law, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (OSHA) , requires the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, when, in its opinion, a place of employment, machine, device, apparatus, or equipment or any part thereof is in a dangerous condition, is not properly guarded, or is dangerously placed so as to constitute an imminent hazard to employees, to prohibit entry or use, as applicable, and to attach a conspicuous notice of that condition, as specified. OSHA requires that this prohibition be limited to the immediate area in which the imminent hazard exists. OSHA prohibits this notice from being removed except by an authorized representative of the division under certain conditions. OSHA makes a violation of this provision regarding dangerous conditions a crime. This bill would authorize the division, when, in its opinion, a place of employment, operation, or process, or any part thereof, exposes workers to the risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, also known as COVID-19) , so as to constitute an imminent hazard to employees, to prohibit the performance of that operation or process, or entry into that place of employment. The bill would require the division to provide a notice thereof to the employer, to be posted in a conspicuous place at the place of employment. The bill would require such a prohibition to be limited to the immediate area in which the imminent hazard exists, as specified. The bill would require such a prohibition to be issued in a manner so as not to materially interrupt the performance of critical governmental functions essential to ensuring public health and safety functions or the delivery of electrical power or water. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This COVID-19 imminent hazard provision would be repealed on January 1, 2023. (2) Existing law requires an employer to file a report of every occupational injury or occupational illness, as defined, of each employee that results in lost time beyond the date of the injury or illness, and that requires medical treatment beyond first aid, with the Department of Industrial Relations, on a form prescribed by the department. Existing law requires an employer to immediately report a serious occupational injury, illness, or death to the division by telephone or email, as specified. This bill would require a public or private employer or representative of the employer, except as specified, that receives a notice of potential exposure to COVID-19 to provide specified notifications to its employees within one business day of the notice of potential exposure. The bill would require the employer to provide prescribed notice to all employees, and the employers of subcontracted employees, who were on the premises at the same worksite as a qualifying individual, as defined, within the infectious period, as defined, that they may have been exposed to COVID-19. The bill would require notice to the exclusive representative, if any, of notified employees. The bill would require an employer to provide those employees and any exclusive representative with certain information regarding COVID-19-related benefits and options. The bill would require an employer to notify all employees, the employers of subcontracted employees, and any exclusive representative on the disinfection and safety plan that the employer plans to implement and complete per the guidelines of the federal Centers for Disease Control. The bill would require an employer to maintain records of notifications for at least 3 years. The bill would provide for a specified civil penalty for an employer that violates the notification requirements. The bill would define additional terms for its purposes. The bill would require an employer, if the employer or representative of the employer is notified of the number of cases that meet the definition of a COVID-19 outbreak, as defined, within 48 hours, to report prescribed information to the local public health agency in the jurisdiction of the worksite. The bill would require an employer that has an outbreak to continue to give notice to the local health department of any subsequent laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 at the worksite. The bill would exempt a health facility, as defined, from this reporting requirement. The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to make specified information on outbreaks publicly available on its internet website, as specified. The bill would require local public health departments and the division to provide a link to this page on its internet websites. By requiring additional duties from local public health departments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) OSHA creates a rebuttable presumption that a "serious violation" exists in a place of employment if the division demonstrates that there is a realistic possibility that death or serious physical harm could result from the actual hazard created by the violation. OSHA requires the division, before issuing a citation alleging that a violation is serious, to make a reasonable attempt to determine and consider certain facts. This OSHA requirement is satisfied if the division sends, at least 15 days before issuing such a citation, a standardized form containing descriptions of the alleged violation the division intends to cite as serious and clearly soliciting the prescribed information. OSHA permits an employer to rebut the presumption, as prescribed, and establishes inferences that may be drawn at hearing with regard to information provided by an employer in rebuttal. This bill would exempt a citation alleging a serious violation relating to SARS-CoV-2 from the precitation standardized form provision and the rebuttal at hearing provision. This exemption would be repealed on January 1, 2023. (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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (5) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 84, Statutes of 2020.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1:30 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 52. Noes 17. Page 5499.).

  5. Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Ayes 57. Noes 16. Page 5498.)

  6. From committee: That the Senate amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 31).

  7. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 5372.)

  8. Re-referred to Com. on L. & E. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

  9. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

  10. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 26. Noes 9.).

  11. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

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

  13. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  14. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  15. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 20).

  16. In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  17. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (August 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  18. Re-referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.

  19. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  20. Withdrawn from committee.

  21. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  22. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  23. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  24. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  25. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 1873.)

  26. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  27. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 18. Noes 0.) (May 16).

  28. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  29. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 2). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  30. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (March 26). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  31. Referred to Coms. on HUM. S. and JUD.

  32. From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.

  33. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 9 voted No

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

Votes

Passed 52 Yea · 17 Nay · 10 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 331107
Democratic 19003
Republican 0600
Total 5217010
% of votes cast 66%22%0%13%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Daly — Yea
Salas — Yea
Ting — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Levine — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Wood — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Holden — Yea
Medina — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Burke — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Weber — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Gloria — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Chu — Yea
Low — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Cunningham — Nay
Diep — Nay
Fong — Nay
Brough — Nay
Obernolte — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Mathis — Nay
Kiley — Nay
Mayes — Nay
Frazier — Not Voting
Gray — Not Voting
Eggman — Not Voting
Voepel — Not Voting
Smith — Not Voting
Nazarian — Not Voting
Cooley — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Not Voting
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Not Voting
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Not Voting
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Choi, Steven S. Republican Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 26 Yea · 9 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 9001
Unaffiliated 17703
Republican 0201
Total 26905
% of votes cast 65%23%0%13%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Galgiani — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Allen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Monning — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Beall — Yea
Roth — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Moorlach — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Bates — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Wilk — Nay
Borgeas — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Dodd — Not Voting
Chang — Not Voting
Glazer — Not Voting
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Not Voting
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5100
Republican 0100
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Bates — Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Republican 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Leyva — Yea
Bates — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 78 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 46002
Republican 7000
Democratic 25000
Total 78002
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Mathis — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Low — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Gray — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Medina — Yea
Chu — Yea
Ting — Yea
McCarty — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Salas — Yea
Brough — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Holden — Yea
Daly — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Weber — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Levine — Yea
Wood — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Cooley — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 18 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 7000
Unaffiliated 11000
Total 18000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 12 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 8000
Democratic 3000
Republican 1000
Total 12000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Kiley — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Holden — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Chau — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 8 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4000
Republican 1000
Democratic 3000
Total 8000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Friedman — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

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 AB 685 do?
(1) Existing law, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (OSHA) , requires the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, when, in its opinion, a place of employment, machine, device, apparatus, or equipment or any part thereof is in a dangerous condition, is not properly guarded, or is dangerously placed so as to constitute an imminent hazard to employees, to prohibit entry or use, as applicable, and to attach a conspicuous notice of that condition, as specified. OSHA requires that this prohibition be limited to the immediate area in which the imminent hazard exists. OSHA prohibits this notice from being removed except by an authorized representative of the division under certain conditions. OSHA makes a violation of this provision regarding dangerous conditions a crime. This bill would authorize the division, when, in its opinion, a place of employment, operation, or process, or any part thereof, exposes workers to the risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, also known as COVID-19) , so as to constitute an imminent hazard to employees, to prohibit the performance of that operation or process, or entry into that place of employment. The bill would require the division to provide a notice thereof to the employer, to be posted in a conspicuous place at the place of employment. The bill would require such a prohibition to be limited to the immediate area in which the imminent hazard exists, as specified. The bill would require such a prohibition to be issued in a manner so as not to materially interrupt the performance of critical governmental functions essential to ensuring public health and safety functions or the delivery of electrical power or water. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This COVID-19 imminent hazard provision would be repealed on January 1, 2023. (2) Existing law requires an employer to file a report of every occupational injury or occupational illness, as defined, of each employee that results in lost time beyond the date of the injury or illness, and that requires medical treatment beyond first aid, with the Department of Industrial Relations, on a form prescribed by the department. Existing law requires an employer to immediately report a serious occupational injury, illness, or death to the division by telephone or email, as specified. This bill would require a public or private employer or representative of the employer, except as specified, that receives a notice of potential exposure to COVID-19 to provide specified notifications to its employees within one business day of the notice of potential exposure. The bill would require the employer to provide prescribed notice to all employees, and the employers of subcontracted employees, who were on the premises at the same worksite as a qualifying individual, as defined, within the infectious period, as defined, that they may have been exposed to COVID-19. The bill would require notice to the exclusive representative, if any, of notified employees. The bill would require an employer to provide those employees and any exclusive representative with certain information regarding COVID-19-related benefits and options. The bill would require an employer to notify all employees, the employers of subcontracted employees, and any exclusive representative on the disinfection and safety plan that the employer plans to implement and complete per the guidelines of the federal Centers for Disease Control. The bill would require an employer to maintain records of notifications for at least 3 years. The bill would provide for a specified civil penalty for an employer that violates the notification requirements. The bill would define additional terms for its purposes. The bill would require an employer, if the employer or representative of the employer is notified of the number of cases that meet the definition of a COVID-19 outbreak, as defined, within 48 hours, to report prescribed information to the local public health agency in the jurisdiction of the worksite. The bill would require an employer that has an outbreak to continue to give notice to the local health department of any subsequent laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 at the worksite. The bill would exempt a health facility, as defined, from this reporting requirement. The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to make specified information on outbreaks publicly available on its internet website, as specified. The bill would require local public health departments and the division to provide a link to this page on its internet websites. By requiring additional duties from local public health departments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) OSHA creates a rebuttable presumption that a "serious violation" exists in a place of employment if the division demonstrates that there is a realistic possibility that death or serious physical harm could result from the actual hazard created by the violation. OSHA requires the division, before issuing a citation alleging that a violation is serious, to make a reasonable attempt to determine and consider certain facts. This OSHA requirement is satisfied if the division sends, at least 15 days before issuing such a citation, a standardized form containing descriptions of the alleged violation the division intends to cite as serious and clearly soliciting the prescribed information. OSHA permits an employer to rebut the presumption, as prescribed, and establishes inferences that may be drawn at hearing with regard to information provided by an employer in rebuttal. This bill would exempt a citation alleging a serious violation relating to SARS-CoV-2 from the precitation standardized form provision and the rebuttal at hearing provision. This exemption would be repealed on January 1, 2023. (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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (5) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Who sponsors AB 685?
AB 685 is sponsored by Reyes, Eloise Gómez (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 685?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 15, 2019. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 685?
Track AB 685 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 685

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 685

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →