California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 1105 — Hospital workers: COVID-19 testing.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 sets forth safety and health requirements for employers and employees. Existing law requires a public or private employer of workers in a general acute care hospital, as defined, to supply personal protective equipment, as defined, to employees who provide direct patient care or who provide services that directly support patient care. Existing law provides that, except where another penalty is specifically provided, every employer and every officer, management official, or supervisor having direction, management, control, or custody of any employment, place of employment, or of any other employee, who repeatedly violates any standard, order, or special order, or any provision of specified employment safety laws so that such repeated violation creates a real and apparent hazard to employees is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would require the employer to supply personal protective equipment to an employee, regardless of whether or not the employee has received a vaccination for COVID-19. This bill would also require a public or private employer of workers in a general acute care hospital to develop and implement a program to offer weekly COVID-19 screening testing for health care personnel, as defined. The bill would require the program to meet certain requirements, including requiring the employer to conduct the COVID-19 screening testing by administering to participating health care personnel a specified COVID-19 test with results obtained within 48 hours, offering all health care personnel the opportunity to participate in the screening testing program, and offering health care personnel who have signs or symptoms consistent with COVID-19 the opportunity to be tested for COVID-19 within 24 hours. The bill would require an employer to develop and implement health care personnel screening testing guidelines that include policies and procedures that address the use of COVID-19 test results, as specified. The bill would require an employer to develop a COVID-19 mitigation and testing plan containing the requirements described above and to make the plan available to the department and health care personnel and their representatives upon request. The bill would also require an employer to test all patients for COVID-19 prior to admission to the hospital, except as provided, and to monitor all patients during their hospital stay for the development of COVID-19 symptoms. The bill would require a patient that is not tested prior to admission to the hospital to be considered a potential COVID-19 patient, as defined, and would require health care personnel to be provided and to wear full personal protective equipment when providing care to such a patient. The bill would, if an employer provides emergency services and direct patient care services in a general acute care hospital controlled by another employer, impose the requirements of this section only on the employer who controls the general acute care hospital and would require that employer to meet those requirements in that hospital. The bill would impose these requirements only until January 1, 2025. Because the bill would expand the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to suspense file.

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

  4. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1. Page 1695.) (June 28).

  5. Referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.

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

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 59. Noes 11. Page 1848.)

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

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

  10. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.) (May 20).

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

  12. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  13. Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  14. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. Read second time and amended.

  15. Referred to Com. on L. & E.

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

  17. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Rodriguez · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

  • Rodriguez

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

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 5000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

AB 1105 Rodriguez Assembly Third Reading

Passed 59 Yea · 11 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 25201
Unaffiliated 33404
Republican 1504
Total 591109
% of votes cast 75%14%0%11%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Salas — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ting — Yea
Low — Yea
Frazier — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Levine — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Daly — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Gray — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Chau — Yea
Smith — Nay
Cunningham — Nay
Mathis — Nay
Mayes — Nay
Voepel — Not Voting
Kiley — Not Voting
Bigelow — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Not Voting
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Not Voting
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Nay
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Not Voting
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Nay
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 12 Yea · 4 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7100
Democratic 5100
Republican 0200
Total 12400
% of votes cast 75%25%0%0%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Holden — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Nay
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety healthcare
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 1105 do?
Existing law sets forth safety and health requirements for employers and employees. Existing law requires a public or private employer of workers in a general acute care hospital, as defined, to supply personal protective equipment, as defined, to employees who provide direct patient care or who provide services that directly support patient care. Existing law provides that, except where another penalty is specifically provided, every employer and every officer, management official, or supervisor having direction, management, control, or custody of any employment, place of employment, or of any other employee, who repeatedly violates any standard, order, or special order, or any provision of specified employment safety laws so that such repeated violation creates a real and apparent hazard to employees is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would require the employer to supply personal protective equipment to an employee, regardless of whether or not the employee has received a vaccination for COVID-19. This bill would also require a public or private employer of workers in a general acute care hospital to develop and implement a program to offer weekly COVID-19 screening testing for health care personnel, as defined. The bill would require the program to meet certain requirements, including requiring the employer to conduct the COVID-19 screening testing by administering to participating health care personnel a specified COVID-19 test with results obtained within 48 hours, offering all health care personnel the opportunity to participate in the screening testing program, and offering health care personnel who have signs or symptoms consistent with COVID-19 the opportunity to be tested for COVID-19 within 24 hours. The bill would require an employer to develop and implement health care personnel screening testing guidelines that include policies and procedures that address the use of COVID-19 test results, as specified. The bill would require an employer to develop a COVID-19 mitigation and testing plan containing the requirements described above and to make the plan available to the department and health care personnel and their representatives upon request. The bill would also require an employer to test all patients for COVID-19 prior to admission to the hospital, except as provided, and to monitor all patients during their hospital stay for the development of COVID-19 symptoms. The bill would require a patient that is not tested prior to admission to the hospital to be considered a potential COVID-19 patient, as defined, and would require health care personnel to be provided and to wear full personal protective equipment when providing care to such a patient. The bill would, if an employer provides emergency services and direct patient care services in a general acute care hospital controlled by another employer, impose the requirements of this section only on the employer who controls the general acute care hospital and would require that employer to meet those requirements in that hospital. The bill would impose these requirements only until January 1, 2025. Because the bill would expand the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 1105?
AB 1105 is sponsored by Rodriguez.
What is the current status of AB 1105?
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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 1105?
Track AB 1105 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1105

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 AB 1105

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →