10 California Bills that May Resurface in 2024

​This year's legislative session in California was busy, and 2024 could be even more hectic. Here are 10 employment-related bills that could reappear next year after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed them this year.

AB 331

AB 331 would have regulated all uses of automated decision-making tools, said Chris Micheli, principal at Aprea & Micheli Inc. in Sacramento, Calif., during the Oct. 18 SHRM webcast "California Workplace Policy 2023 Legislative Recap & 2024 Look Ahead."

This bill would have prohibited AI tools that result in discrimination under 18 protected classes.

"Too many employers are not yet fully realizing that long-standing nondiscrimination law is applicable even in the very new context of AI-driven employment selection tools," said Jim Paretti, an attorney with Littler in Washington, D.C. He told SHRM Online that an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance issued earlier this year was a "wake-up call to employers."

AB 509

AB 509 would have exempted from personal income tax $5,250 of employer loan repayments for student loans for two years, Micheli said.

AB 524

AB 524 proposed making family caregiver status a protected class under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Had Newsom signed the bill, family caregiver status would have been the 19th protected category under FEHA.

Newsom vetoed AB 524 because of its call for "special accommodations," rather than reasonable accommodation, Micheli noted. Micheli said there were other problems with the bill, including imprecise definitions of who constituted a caregiver and no guidance on the length of time for or level of care.

AB 747

AB 747 would have prohibited employers from offering tuition reimbursement or hiring bonuses tied to a term of service, Micheli said.

AB 1356

AB 1356 would have extended the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act's notice requirement from 60 days to 75 days.

The bill also would have extended the notice requirement to labor contractors, which was Newsom's stated concern when he vetoed it, Micheli noted.

SB 399

SB 399 would have precluded employer-convened meetings on religious or political matters. Adverse action because an employee declined to attend or participate in such a meeting would have been prohibited.

SB 627

SB 627 would have made chain employers provide displacement notice and the opportunity for laid-off employees to be rehired at nearby stores.

The bill would have required a chain employer to provide each covered worker and their exclusive representative, if any, a displacement notice at least 60 days before the expected date of a covered establishment. The bill would have defined a "covered establishment" as a chain establishment that is subject to closure resulting in layoffs of workers.

A "chain" would have been defined as a business in California that has 100 or more establishments nationally that share a common brand and are owned and operated by the same parent company.

A "chain employer" would have been defined as any person, including a corporate officer or executive, who directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other person, owns or operates a chain and employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of employers. A chain employer would also have included a franchisee that owns and operates 100 or more establishments nationally under an agreement with one franchisor.

For a year after the closure of a covered establishment, the chain employer would have to provide to all covered workers the opportunity to transfer to a location of the chain within 25 miles of the covered establishment subject to closure as positions become available.

The bill would have required a chain employer to maintain a preferential transfer list of covered workers. Offers of transfer would have had to be made to covered workers based on length of service. "Covered worker" would not have included a managerial, supervisory or confidential worker, or a worker hired explicitly as a temporary or seasonal worker.

A covered worker would have had at least five business days, from the date of receipt, to accept or decline the offer.

A chain employer would have had to retain for a minimum of three years records relating to the closure and offers of employment.

In vetoing the bill, Newsom said it would have imposed "significant burdens on employers."

SB 731

SB 731 would have required employers to provide 30 calendar days' advance written notice before requiring an employee who is working from home to return to work in person. The bill also would have required the notice to include specified text informing employees of their right to request continuing to work remotely as a reasonable accommodation for a disability.

"My administration supports reasonable advance notice by employers, where feasible to employees of return-to-work requirements, in order to allow for employees to prepare for change," Newsom said in his veto letter. "My administration also strongly supports the existing legal requirement that employers must reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities, which includes the possibility that working from home could be a reasonable accommodation in appropriate circumstances and encourages that information to be included in employer communications with employees about return to work."

However, he added, "SB would impose an inflexible 30-day advance notice requirement to return-to-work that would not take into account the needs of any particular employer. Businesses, especially small businesses, may have limited employees to staff in-person positions and the 30-day advance notice requirement of return-to-work could be impractical, especially in times of critical need or emergencies."

Micheli said that next year, bill supporters might propose a shorter period of notice before employers can require employees to return to work.

SB 799

SB 799 would have allowed striking workers to claim unemployment insurance after two weeks of striking.

SB 809

SB 809 would have prohibited employers' consideration of conviction history. Despite the existence of California's "ban-the-box" law, the bill would have gone further, Micheli said. California is one of at least 33 states with ban-the-box laws that require employers to remove criminal-history questions from employment applications.