©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2025 Cal-Peculiarities | 49 14 See, e.g., Gonzales v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 3d 961 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (denying motion to dismiss gestational surrogate’s claims for failure to accommodate and discrimination where she expressed milk for the child she delivered for several months and then continued to express milk for her own health benefits and for donation purposes). 15 Lab. Code §§ 1030-1032. 16 SB 142, 2019 bill amending Lab. Code §§ 1030, 1031, 1033 and adding Lab. Code § 1034. 17 Labor Code § 1031 (f-i). 18 SB 142, 2019 bill amending Lab. Code §§ 1030, 1031, 1033 and adding Lab. Code § 1034. 19 Lab. Code § 1033(b), (c) (noting that Labor Commissioner can seek civil penalties for violations). 20 See, e.g., Gonzales v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 3d 961 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (denying motion to dismiss gestational surrogate’s claims for failure to accommodate and discrimination where she expressed milk for the child she delivered for several months and then continued to express milk for her own health benefits and for donation purposes). 21 San Francisco Lactation in the Workplace Ordinance, San Francisco Police Code Article 331, https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_police/0-0-0-49176 (last visited Mar. 5, 2022). 22 A covered employer must be engaged in any business or enterprise in California and directly employ five or more employees within any state of the United States, District of Columbia, or any U.S. territory. There is no requirement that the five employees work at the same location or work full time. 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 11087(d). 23 12945.2(a). SB 1383, 2020 bill amending Gov’t Code § 12945.2 to remove geographical eligibility requirement. 24 SB 1383, 2020 bill amending Gov’t Code § 12945.6 and amending, repealing, and adding Gov’t Code § 12945.2. 25 Gov’t Code § 12945.2. Special eligibility rules apply to employees working for an air carrier as a flight deck or cabin crew member, who are eligible if they have 12 months of service and meet certain other requirements. Gov’t Code § 12945.2(r). 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 “an employer shall grant a request for a CFRA leave of less than two weeks’ duration on any two occasions and may grant requests for additional occasions of leave lasting less than two weeks.” 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-bonding-guide/#:~:text=%2C%20%C2%A7%2011035).- ,Yes.,work%20for%20the%20same%20employer (last visited Mar. 15, 2025). 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. 15, 2025). The City of San Francisco has clarified that the ordinance covers
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4