Paid Leave and Parental Leave

California Senate Bill 83 (“SB 83”) – Paid Family Leave (Effective July 1, 2020).

Under SB 83, wage replacement benefits under the California Paid Family Leave (PFL) increases from 6 weeks to 8 weeks beginning July 1, 2020. This bill amends, repeals, or adds multiple sections of the Government Code, Labor Code, and Unemployment Insurance Code.

Employers are not required to provide paid parental leave under federal or California law. New parents can receive partial wages from the state while taking time off to bond with a child. The state pays 60 percent of most employees' wages—up to a maximum set by state law ($1,252 in 2019)—for six weeks. California Senate Bill 83.

Paid Family Leave — Partial Wage Replacement Benefits

Paid Family Leave (PFL) provides benefits to individuals who need to take time off work to care for a seriously ill child, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or registered domestic partner. Benefits are also available to new parents who need time to bond with a new child entering their life either by birth, adoption, or foster care placement. PFL does not provide job protection, only monetary benefits. California Senate Bill 83.

Useful Rulings on Paid Leave and Parental Leave

Recent Rulings on Paid Leave and Parental Leave

LYNETTE SALAZAR VS CITY OF GLENDALE ET AL

In the instant Motion, Defendants argue that Salazar could not perform the functions of a police officer with an accommodation, and that in three of five injuries she was permitted to work light duty and one time she was given paid leave when light duty was not available. (Motion at p. 16.) In Opposition, Salazar presents evidence that in November 2016 she injured her wrist during a work Jiu Jitsu training, and in 2017 she sustained an injury to her feet. (PMF ¶ 176.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JASON ROJAS VS COUNTRYWOOD PARK HOMES

In the instant Motion, Defendants argue that Salazar could not perform the functions of a police officer with an accommodation, and that in three of five injuries she was permitted to work light duty and one time she was given paid leave when light duty was not available. (Motion at p. 16.) In Opposition, Salazar presents evidence that in November 2016 she injured her wrist during a work Jiu Jitsu training, and in 2017 she sustained an injury to her feet. (PMF ¶ 176.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

LYNETTE SALAZAR VS CITY OF GLENDALE ET AL

In the instant Motion, Defendants argue that Salazar could not perform the functions of a police officer with an accommodation, and that in three of five injuries she was permitted to work light duty and one time she was given paid leave when light duty was not available. (Motion at p. 16.) In Opposition, Salazar presents evidence that in November 2016 she injured her wrist during a work Jiu Jitsu training, and in 2017 she sustained an injury to her feet. (PMF ¶ 176.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING VS SANTA CLARITA

The District presents evidence that that Anderson was being placed on paid leave on February 2, 2015, rather than remaining at work as Anderson preferred. (UMF 42.) However, this fact does not establish that any decision was permanent. In the Court’s employees regularly are placed on medical leave, return to work, and again are placed on medical leave: the process may be cyclical and the fact that Anderson was placed on medical leave a single time does not establish what the District seeks to establish.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ENTSMINGER V. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC

., Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635, 651-652—discharged employee's request for paid leave as accommodation to allow him to donate kidney to sister, and complaints regarding denial of leave, did not qualify as “protected activity” for retaliation claim under § 12940(h) because employee did not “oppose any conduct forbidden” by FEHA (though termination was otherwise actionable.] The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to retaliation claims as well.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2020

SCOTT FISCH VS COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The agreement additionally contained a provision regarding third party disclosure: “[W]ith respect to any and all third party inquiries about Picton,. . . such inquiries shall be directed to the Superintendent of the District, or his successor, who shall respond verbally and only disclose the dates of Picton’s employment,, his highest yearly salary, that Picton is or was, as the case may be, on a paid leave for the 1993/94 school year, and the information set forth in Exhibit ‘B’ attached thereto. . .

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

PATRICIA BILGIN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Bilgin also provides the declaration of a former City Attorney’s Office investigator, Delia Sarmiento (“Sarmiento”), who states that while she was on medical leave, she was forced to burn through all of her “benefit time” (sick time, vacation time, paid leave time, etc.) until she was paid nothing. (Savarese Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. 6, ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

This interpretation also finds support in case law that holds paid leave, when offered, “is part of the employee’s basic compensation package.” (Paton v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1518; see also Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 774, 779 [“It is established that vacation pay is not a gratuity or a gift, but is, in effect, additional wages for services performed.”]; Brown v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2019

BLAIR V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

leave for the post-surgery recovery as the financial sacrifice of unpaid leave was too extreme for her; the State of California has an express public policy set forth in Labor Code, §§ 1508, et seq. to provide 30 days paid leave to organ donors, which benefits both private and public sector employees; recuperating donors are expected to exhaust unused vacation and sick days before the paid leave commences; defendant County contends that Labor Code, §§ 1508, et seq. do not apply to counties; an email from County

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

JACKIE HAYWOOD VS. HENKEL CORPORATION

Both employees were put on paid leave at the end of June through the first two weeks of July 2016, while Henkel investigated this charge. (UMF 4, 5; Pltf’s Ex. A, Malzahn Depo., at 153:22-154:9.) MacCaskie was off work on this leave starting on June 30, 2016. (UMF 5.) During the investigatory leave, Ken Swank wrote an email on July 7, 2016 to Plant Manager, Leonard Bunes, about three instances of non-conforming materials and one of foreign object debris.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

DARRIN MERRITT VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

See UF Nos. 22 – 32; Merritt Depo, pages 132:7 – 163:11; Exhs. 11 – 22 (Plaintiff was on paid leave from June 7, 2017 to January 18, 2018 when his benefits (illness and vacation time) ended. Also, Defendant has failed to meet its initial burden, as the party moving for summary adjudication, that Plaintiff was not qualified to do his job with reasonable accommodation. See discussion below at 6. Accordingly, Defendant does not shift the burden to Plaintiff based upon this argument.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BLAIR V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

leave for the post-surgery recovery as the financial sacrifice of unpaid leave was too extreme for her; the State of California has an express public policy set forth in Labor Code, §§ 1508, et seq. to provide 30 days paid leave to organ donors, which benefits both private and public sector employees; recuperating donors are expected to exhaust unused vacation and sick days before the paid leave commences; defendant County contends that Labor Code, §§ 1508, et seq. do not apply to counties; an email from County

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2019

DIGNITY HEALTH V KRAMER

Labor Code §245.5(a)(1) provides an exemption to the Act for certain “employees” Appellant relies on the exemption for employees as defined in §245.5(a)(1), which provides (a) “Employee” does not include the following: (1) An employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreemen expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of employees and expressly provides for paid sick days or a paid leave or paid time off policy tha permits the use of sick days for those employees

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

BELCHER VS. CSAA

ABUSE OF AUTHORITY IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE SECTION 53243.4 (FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION) Gov’t Code Section 53243 provides for reimbursement of paid leave salary by an officer or employee of a local agency upon conviction of a crime involving an abuse of his or her office or position.

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2019

STAFFORD V. AVENAL COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER

G) by: - allowing plaintiff only eight vacation hours for the year, while the agreement states that plaintiff earns 80 hours of paid leave progressively throughout the first year of employment, in addition to paid holidays (Complaint ¶ 109); - placing plaintiff on-call at all times in November 2016 (Complaint ¶ 110); - requiring plaintiff to consistently exceed 40 hours in a workweek (Complaint ¶ 111); and - terminating plaintiff after she gave 30-days’ notice (Complaint ¶ 112).

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2018

ADENA BLAIR VS. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

This is a mixed action in which Plaintiff alleges causes of action for promissory estoppel and disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), stemming from Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's request for paid leave following her kidney donation to an ailing family member. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a public health nurse. As a public health nurse, Plaintiff provided nursing services to the Community HUBs in El Dorado County.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BUCKMAN V. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Accordingly, the undisputed evidence shows that defendant reasonably accommodated plaintiff by providing her paid leave. Thus, defendant has established that plaintiff cannot prove she made a request for accommodation that was not granted, an essential element of her claim. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant summary adjudication as to the second cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2018

ALFONSO LARES VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTAT

The Court is not persuaded that the opinion letter FMLA-100 issued on January 12, 1999 is thorough in its consideration as the letter was based on limited information and one sentence that provides, “…if the FMLA leave was covered by paid leave (or unpaid leave) that provides for the accrual of benefits and seniority, then the FMLA leave could be credited towards the time free of a recordable incident.” (emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROSAS LIVIER ALVARA VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendant contends they provided Plaintiff with an accommodation in the form of a lengthy paid leave of absence with multiple extensions. Plaintiff was afforded an unpaid permissive leave after she had exhausted her paid leave balances. (UF 58). When after four months of permissive leave Plaintiff submitted a doctor’s note in September of 2016, Principal Nunez denied her request for additional unpaid time off, triggering the mandatory provisions of Education Code §45192.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2018

EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC. VS. MARY A. MARTIN

All paid leave benefits were exhausted by 2001. Martin was relying upon Workers’ Compensation benefits which were delayed, causing Martin to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy on March 22, 2001. The property was released from the stay. Payments were then made on the property up until August 4, 2004. The property was sold in a Foreclosure Sale on April 6, 2005. Martin was evicted on June 4, 2005. · Martin claims ETS failed to inform her of the surplus sale proceeds after the sale of the property.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2018

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VERNALEA PANGA VS BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE LOS ANGELES COU

The Astorga court remarked that Katosh “confirmed the bright line rule that disability retirement benefits are not available until the day following the day paid leave was last received.” Id. The court added that Astorga knew or should have known the consequences on her disability retirement date of choosing to retain her health benefits. Id. at 391-92. 2.

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JEFFREY HUMBLE VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES E

“Dock pay” is a classification that indicates absence with approval, but that the employee lacked sufficient paid leave balance to cover the time. Pet. ¶21. “Dock pay” is not synonymous with being absent without official leave (“AWOL”). Pet. ¶22. On November 7, 2016, DFW issued Humble a memorandum entitled “Notice of AWOL Separation,” stating that DFW intended to invoke the AWOL statute effective October 18, 2016 because Humble had been absent without leave for more than five consecutive workdays.

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SAN YSIDRO SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. PAUL

Reimbursement of paid leave salary required upon conviction of crime involving office or position On or after January 1, 2012, any contract executed or renewed between a local agency and an officer or employee of a local agency that provides paid leave salary offered by the local agency to the officer or employee pending an investigation shall require that any salary provided for that purpose be fully reimbursed if the officer or employee is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of his or her office or position

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MATTINGLY-VIERS VS. COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

There is a triable issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff was wrongfully denied a non-paid and/or paid leave. Further, as to causal relationship, the demand for an updated medical report from Plaintiff was clearly related to her disability claim and reasonable accommodation claims.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2017

LAURA CAFFELL VS GL LBH LLC

He requested a paid leave of absence to do so, under a then-new statute requiring the employer to provide paid leave. Two days before the statute took effect on January 1, 2011, the employer terminated him on the allegedly pretextual basis of poor performance. (Id. at pp. 642–643, 658.) The “reasonable inference” from these facts was that the employer “acted preemptively to avoid an expense stemming from [the plaintiff's] association with his physically disabled sister.” (Id. at p. 658.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.