48 | 2024 Cal-Peculiarities ©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 26 Gov’t Code § 12945.2. SB 1383, 2020 bill amending Gov’t Code § 12945.2(b)(4)(B) to add new covered family members (grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings) and revising definition of child to remove age limitations. 27 AB 1033, amending Gov’t Code § 12945.2(b)(11) to add “parent-in-law” to the definition of “parent.” 28 Gov’t Code § 12945.2. AB 1041, 2022 bill amending Gov’t Code § 12945.2(b)(2) to add “designated person” as a new covered family member. 29 Id. 30 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 11090(d) provides that “[o]n two occasions, an employee has a right to take intermittent CFRA bonding leave of less than two weeks’ duration.” The Civil Rights Department interprets the definition of “eligible employee” in 2 Cal. Code Regs § 11087(g) to cover both parents even when they are employed by the same employer. https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/employment/pdl-bondingguide/#:~:text=%2C%20%C2%A7%2011035).-,Yes.,work%20for%20the%20same%20employer (last visited Mar. 18, 2024). 31 See generally 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 11091(b)(2). 32 Gov’t Code § 12945.2(q) (“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this section.”). This legislation aims to incorporate parallel restrictions in the federal FMLA. 33 Lares v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth., 56 Cal. App. 5th 318 (2020). 34 SB 1383, amending Parental Leave Act, Gov’t Code § 12945.6 to sunset on December 31, 2020. 35 AB 1867, adding and repealing Gov’t Code § 12945.21. Formerly set to expire on January 1, 2025, the small employer family leave mediation program was made permanent by legislation passed in 2024 (AB 2011) and signed into law by Governor Newsom. 36 Faust v. California Portland Cement Co., 150 Cal. App. 4th 864, 882-83 (2007). 37 Lonicki v. Sutter Health Cent., 43 Cal. 4th 201 (2008). 38 The deadline for the employer’s response is five business days. See 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 11091(a)(6). 39 Olofsson v. Mission Linen Supply, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1236 (2012) (affirming summary judgment for employer but noting that employer might have avoided litigation with a more meticulous leave-request process; the employer took weeks to calculate how many hours the employee had worked during the preceding 12 months, before finally concluding he was ineligible for leave). The employee had requested unpaid FMLA/CFRA leave to care for his mother. The employer denied the request because he had not worked enough hours within the past 12 months. Between the employee’s request for leave and the employer’s denial, the employee spoke several times with supervisors and HR representatives about his request, with the employer providing a leave request form and asking the employee to submit a doctor’s letter corroborating the need for leave. 40 29 C.F.R. § 825.102. 41 Richey v. AutoNation, Inc., 210 Cal. App. 4th 1516, 1537, 1540-41 (2012), review granted, No. S207536 (Cal. Feb. 13, 2013). The Court of Appeal reversed a judgment confirming an arbitration award for the employer, which had fired an employee while he was on CFRA leave, in the belief that he was misusing his leave by working part-time at the restaurant he owned. The Court of Appeal concluded that the arbitrator had committed clear legal error by accepting an “honest belief” defense, because that defense wrongly relieved the employer of its burden to prove the employee actually abused his medical leave by working at another job while on leave. 42 Richey v. AutoNation, Inc., 60 Cal. 4th 909 (2015). 43 Frequently Asked Questions, available at https://sfdhr.org/sites/default/files/documents/Forms-Documents/Family-Friendly-WorkplaceOrdinance-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2024). The City of San Francisco has clarified that the ordinance covers employers with at least 20 employees anywhere. Thus, if the employer has 20 or more employees anywhere in the world, then the ordinance would apply as to any employee working in San Francisco. See Rules Implementing the Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance, July 7, 2022, https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/FFWO%20Rules-Final.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2024). 44 The amendments became effective July 12, 2022. https://sfgov.org/olse/sites/default/files/Amended_Family_Friendly_Workplace_Ordinance_2022.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2024). 45 Specifically, the notice must include the basis for the denial (i.e., how the flexible work arrangement created an undue hardship); the right to request reconsideration of the denial; the right to file a complaint with the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement; and a copy of the Flexible Work Ordinance Notice. 46 Unemp. Ins. Code § 3301. 47 SB 83, 2019 bill sunsetting older versions of Unemp. Ins. Code § 3301 and adding new versions of § 3301 (effective July 1, 2020 and January 1, 2021). San Francisco’s Paid Parental Leave benefit increased to eight weeks as of July 2020. 48 Unemp. Ins. Code § 2655. 49 Unemp. Ins. Code § 33013.1. 50 Unemp. Ins. Code § 3302. 51 Unemp. Ins. Code § 3301. 52 AB 2399, 2020 bill amending Unemp. Ins. Code §§ 3302, 3307. 53 San Francisco Paid Parental Leave Ordinance (“SFPPLO”), https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_laboremployment/0-0-0-596 (last visited Mar. 18, 2024); see Rules Implementing the Paid Parental Leave ordinance. http://sfgov.org/olse/sites/default/files/Document/31%20FINAL%20PPLO%20Rules%2012%2023%2016v2.pdf (last visited Mar. 5, 2023); Cal. Unemployment Ins. Code § 3301.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4