With a February 21, 2025, deadline to introduce new California legislation, several employment-related bills recently were unveiled. Although some of them may not make it to the Governor’s desk, they provide a snapshot of what lawmakers will be debating during this session.

Wage-Hour Violations

Senate Bill 310 (Wiener) would allow for a private “independent civil action” to recover penalties against employers who fail to pay employee wages. Currently, the law allows recovery only by an employee as a statutory penalty or by the Labor Commissioner as a civil penalty.

Senate Bill 261 (Wahab) would provide employers with an incentive to pay outstanding judgments resulting from proceedings before the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). Orders against employers would be posted on the DLSE’s website, and removed only after the DLSE determines that (1) the employer has fully paid any unsatisfied judgment or otherwise resolved the matter, and (2) the employer has submitted certification that the violations have been corrected. Any employer who fails to satisfy the judgment within 180 days would be subject to an additional civil penalty in an amount not to exceed three times the judgment amount. In addition, the employee would be entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Senate Bill 355 (Perez) would give the DLSE the ability to suspend or revoke employers’ driver’s licenses and vehicle registrations if they fail to pay outstanding wage theft judgments. This penalty currently is available when individuals fail to pay child support and state taxes.

Pay Transparency

Senate Bill 642 (Limón) contains a number of provisions related to pay transparency. First, it would eliminate the ability for covered employers to list broad pay scales for their open positions. The pay range could not be more than 10% above or below the mean pay rate within the salary or hourly wage range. The bill would also expand the prohibition on sex-based salary differentials and extend the statute of limitations to file a civil action to recover wages from three (3) to four (4) years for willful violations of Labor Code section 1197.5 (a) and (b).

Under SB 642, a cause of action to recover wages would occur when a discriminatory compensation decision or practice is adopted, an individual becomes subject to the decision or practice, or an individual is affected by the application of the decision or practice. A series of discriminatory wage payments would be actionable as a continuing violation and therefore extend the statute of limitations beyond four years if the discriminatory wage payments arise from an ongoing discriminatory compensation decision or practice.

Pay Data

Under Government  Code section 12999(a), private sector employers with 100 or more employees must submit annual pay data to the California Civil Rights Department. Senate Bill 464 (Smallwood-Cuevas) would extend this requirement to public employers of the same size beginning in 2027. The scope of the report also would be expanded to include sexual orientation as a category. Information regarding an employee’s or applicant’s sexual orientation would be collected only if voluntarily disclosed by the employee or applicant.

Senate Bill 464 also would require a court to impose a civil penalty against a covered employer that fails to file a pay data report, if requested to do so by the Civil Rights Department (CRD). Currently, a court is authorized but not required to do so. In addition, the CRD would be required to publish private employer pay data reports even without any accompanying investigation or enforcement proceeding involving the data. Currently, pay data reports are confidential in the absence of CRD action.

“Workplace Surveillance Tools”

Assembly Bill 1331 (Elhawary) would subject employers to strict limitations if they use “workplace surveillance tools,” such as a device to collect data about an individual’s activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors. Common tools in this area include video or audio surveillance, electronic work pace tracking, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, and photo-optical systems.

If enacted, this bill generally would prohibit employers from using a workplace surveillance tool to monitor workers in private, off-duty work areas, at their homes, in their vehicles, or on property owned, leased, or used by a worker. Workers also could not be required to implant any data collection device in the body. In addition, all surveillance tools would need to be disabled during off-duty hours. Employers who violate the law would be subject to a civil penalty of $500 per employee for each violation and subject to an enforcement action.

Artificial Intelligence

Assembly Bill 1018 (Bauer-Kahan) would require employers to disclose to affected individuals the use of “automated decision systems” (ADS) in making employment-related decisions, such as hiring, compensation, and work assignments. Employers should expect related developments in this area as well.