Currently pending before the California Senate is SB 1044, a bill that would allow employees to refuse to come to work, or to walk off the job, whenever they feel unsafe or whenever there is a declared state of emergency. The bill also would prohibit employers from preventing employees from using their mobile devices during an emergency. The most recent amendments to the bill partially address employer concerns about the scope of the bill. Nevertheless, the bill would create an additional exception to at-will employment and has been labeled a “job-killer” by the California Chamber of Commerce.

The key provisions of the bill are as follows:

In the event of a state of emergency or an emergency condition, an employer shall not do either of the following:

(1) Take or threaten adverse action against any employee refusing to report to, or leaving, a workplace within the affected area because the employee feels unsafe.

(2) Prevent any employee from accessing the employee’s mobile device or other communications device for seeking emergency assistance, assessing the safety of the situation, or communicating with a person to verify their safety.

The phrase “emergency condition” is defined as either “(1) An event that poses serious danger to the structure of workplace or to a worker’s immediate health and safety. [or] (2) An order to evacuate a workplace, a worker’s home, or the school of a worker’s child.”

Sponsors and supporters of SB 1044 insist the law is necessary, and point to recent natural disasters and active shooter scenarios in which employees were seriously injured or even killed at work when they were allegedly prevented from stopping work or leaving the worksite. Opponents claim the law is unnecessary, as the California Labor Code already protects from adverse employment action employees who report unsafe working condition (Section 6310) and those who refuse to perform work in violation of prescribed safety standards, where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or other employees (Section 6311).

The most recent amendments to the bill require employees to give notice “when feasible” and specify that the job protection applies not to an existing state of emergency (such as the COVID-19 pandemic), but to any states of emergency that are declared after enactment of the legislation. 

Employees do not need to show how the emergency impacts them, other than a statement that they feel subjectively unsafe. Critics point out that an employer could face damages for wrongful termination under this provision and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA.

We will continue to monitor the status of this legislation.


Practice areas:

Industries:

Recent publications

Court building's stone pillars viewed from below

Publication

ECJ confirms public tenders’ restrictions for companies from third countries with no procurement agreement with the EU

EU Member States may allow companies from countries that have not concluded an agreement guaranteeing equal and reciprocal access to public procurement (public procurement agreement) with the EU to participate in public tenders, provided there is no EU act excluding the relevant country.

Global | November 15, 2024

Antitrust and competition
Cricket ball resting on a cricket bat on green grass of cricket pitch

Publication

Has the Budget finally levelled the playing field for UK Islamic finance?

Cricket players will tell you that whether a pitch is easy to bat on is not dictated by how much the balls bounce or turn, but rather, whether they do so consistently.

United Kingdom | November 15, 2024

Government relations and public policy

Publication

Ireland

On 31 October 2023, the Screening of Third Country Transactions Act 2023 (the “Act”), which establishes a new foreign direct investment ("FDI") screening regime in Ireland, was enacted.

Global | November 13, 2024

Antitrust and competition
Site search

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .

Register now