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 (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.
In opposition, plaintiff contends evidence of the circumstances of Kara Keister's employment and her termination when she was on parental leave is admissible to show discriminatory intent. Plaintiff is persuasive on the present record. The Court sees no necessity for a 402 hearing at this time. See discussion regarding Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #4. Motion #2 to exclude evidence of confidential settlement between defendant and Kara Keister The motion is granted.
Feb 11, 2010
Employment
Wrongful Term
Sacramento County, CA
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
Oct 05, 2017
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
DEFENDANT WAS OBLIGATED TO PLACE PLAINTIFF ON LEAVE IN RESPONSE TO HER DOCTOR'S NOTES AND PLAINTIFF HAS NOT PROVIDED A BASIS THAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO PAID LEAVE. THE COMMON LAW CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DUPLICATIVE BUT ARE NOT BARRED BY FEHA. WORKER'S COMPENSATION DOES NOT BAR THE NEGLIGENT INFLICTION CLAIM BECAUSE OF THE EXTREME NATURE OF THE DIRECTOR'S CONDUCT. DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 AND 7 ARE OVERRULED.
Oct 15, 2008
San Francisco County, CA
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.
Jun 12, 2018
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Sep 13, 2019
El Dorado County, CA
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
Apr 05, 2019
El Dorado County, CA
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.
Oct 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.
Aug 22, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 24, 2018
Employment
Other Employment
Sacramento County, CA
Plaintiff took paid leave (using sick and personal necessity time) in late October 2015 until mid-November 2015 to deal with a personal family issue. Plaintiff was then placed on paid administrative leave on November 17, 2015. Following a fitness for duty examination, plaintiff returned to work sometime in April 2016. Defendants seek summary judgment.
May 26, 2017
Employment
Other Employment
San Diego County, CA
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
Apr 04, 2019
Santa Cruz County, CA
Plaintiff took paid leave (using sick and personal necessity time) in late October 2015 until mid-November 2015 to deal with a personal family issue. Plaintiff was then placed on paid administrative leave on November 17, 2015. Following a fitness for duty examination, plaintiff returned to work sometime in April 2016. Defendants seek summary judgment.
May 26, 2017
Employment
Other Employment
San Diego County, CA
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.
May 24, 2018
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Apr 03, 2019
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Jul 31, 2019
Contra Costa County, CA
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.)
Aug 24, 2018
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Despite being a model employee, Plaintiff was placed on paid leave on 11/10/14. Plaintiff was notified on 11/14/14 that her position was to be permanently eliminated effective 12/31/14, and Plaintiff was terminated on 12/31/14. ¶ 29. However, a new executive assistant to the executive director was hired a year later shortly after the new executive director was hired. Id.
Mar 29, 2017
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Aug 07, 2017
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
., 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.
Jan 27, 2020
Orange County, CA
“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.
Apr 24, 2018
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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. . .
Dec 03, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 04, 2018
Fresno County, CA
leave, and not established as to this being a request for an accommodation; and (vii) Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts Nos. 1-45 are supported by the cited-to evidence and are established.
Feb 03, 2017
Employment
Other Employment
Ventura County, CA
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.
Sep 20, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Specifically, Defendants note that PCC placed Plaintiff on an unpaid leave of absence after Plaintiff had exhausted her paid leave and also considered an extension of unpaid leave if it would permit Plaintiff time to recover. (DSS 95.) In opposition, Plaintiff does not contend that PCC breached its obligation to accommodate her disability once she took a medical leave of absence; she contends PCC breached its obligation by failing to accommodate her request for an office relocation.
Dec 07, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
