Occupational safety and health: employee refusal to perform hazardous tasks.
Summary
Existing law, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, requires employers to comply with certain safety and health standards, as specified, and charges the Division of Occupational Safety and Health in the Department of Industrial Relations with enforcement of the act. Existing law prohibits an employer from laying off or discharging an employee for refusing to perform work that would violate prescribed safety standards where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or other employees. Existing law defines "employee" for purposes of those provisions to include a domestic work employee, except as specified. This bill would revise and recast those provisions to, among other things, allow an employee, acting in good faith, to refuse to perform a tasked assigned by an employer if it would violate those prescribed safety standards or if the employee has a reasonable apprehension that the performance of the assigned task would result in injury or illness to the employee or other employees. The bill would make the employee's refusal contingent on the employee or another employee, if reasonably practical, having communicated or attempted to notify the employer of the safety or health risk and the employer having failed to provide a response that is reasonably calculated to allay the employee's concerns. The bill would require the employer to pay the employee full wages during their scheduled work hours until, among other things, the employee can reasonably conclude that the task will no longer result in the risk of serious injury or illness to the employee or other employees. The bill would prohibit an employer from using an employee's refusal to perform an assigned task as grounds for any disciplinary action, and would make certain retaliation protections applicable to the bill's provisions. The bill would delete the provision defining "employee" to include a domestic work employee.
Bill status
failed
1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2025
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 21, 2025
Last action Feb 2, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 1 comparison
What changed between versions
02/21/25 - Introduced
→
AB1371
·
1 edit
MINOR
No substantive policy changes occurred between these two versions. The diff reflects a reformatting of the same introduced bill text from a traditional printed legislative document layout (with line numbers and page headers) to a web-based bill tracking system display format. The actual statutory language, provisions, and scope of AB 1371 remain identical.
TECHNICAL
The bill text was reformatted from a printed legislative document with line numbers and page markers to a web-based display format including navigation elements (skip to content, home, accessibility, FAQ, etc.) and a different heading structure. No changes to the substantive provisions of the bill were made.
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
6
Key actions
2
Committee
3
Feb 2, 2026
Lower · Passed
From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
lower
Mar 13, 2025
Committee
Referred to Com. on L. & E.
lower
Feb 22, 2025
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.
lower
Feb 21, 2025
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
LaShae Sharp-Collins
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1371
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1371. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline