San Francisco County Municipal Code Art. 32 San Francisco Family Friendly

WORKPLACE ORDINANCE* Sec. 32.1. Title. Sec. 32.2. Findings. Sec. 32.3. Definitions. Sec. 32.4. Right to a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement. Sec. 32.5. Process for Establishing a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement. Sec. 32.6. Request for Reconsideration by Employee from the Denial of Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement. Sec. 32.7. Exercise of Rights and Caregiver Status Protected; Retaliation Prohibited. Sec. 32.8. Notice and Posting Requirements for Employers. Sec. 32.9. Employer Records. Sec. 32.10. Implementation and Enforcement. Sec. 32.11. Exemption of Certain Job Classifications Pertaining to Public Health and Public Safety. Sec. 32.12. Waiver Through Collective Bargaining. Sec. 32.13. Other Legal Requirements. Sec. 32.14. Rulemaking Authority. Sec. 32.15. Outreach. Sec. 32.16. Preemption. Sec. 32.17. City Undertaking Limited to Promotion of General Welfare.

*Editor’s Note: Former Administrative Code Chapter 12Z (“San Francisco Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance”) was redesignated as Labor and Employment Code Article 32 by Ord. 221- 23, File No. 230835, approved November 3, 2023, effective December 4, 2023, and operative January 4, 2024.

This Article shall be known as the “San Francisco Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance.” (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.1 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

(a) Over the past few decades, the demographics of the nation’s workforce and the understanding of family structures have undergone and continue to undergo significant changes. These changes include an increased number of women in the workforce; fewer households with children that have at least one parent at home full-time; more single-parent households; increased caregiving responsibilities for both children and older adults; and an expansion of the understanding of what comprises a family unit. As a result of these and other changes, the demands placed on workers with family responsibilities are greater and more complex today than ever before. The global COVID-19 pandemic has placed great strains on caregivers in families, with the impacts felt most dramatically among economically and socially vulnerable populations. As in every American city, San Francisco’s workforce and families have experienced these changes. (b) A marked change in the workforce, and consequently in families, is the large increase in numbers of women who now work outside the home. In 1960, a married woman was employed in approximately 26% of families. By 2013, when this Article 32 was enacted, approximately 68% of married mothers of minor children worked outside the home. In 2020, approximately 69% of married mothers of minor children worked outside the home. The number of single-parent households has increased substantially, more than doubling over the last 50 years. Today, approximately 25% of households are single-parent. Approximately half of all births to women under age 30 are to single mothers. As a result of

these changes in labor force participation and family structures, far fewer households with children have a parent who does not work outside the home. (c) Americans are living longer than before, and many families have direct caregiving responsibilities for elderly parents or other older relatives. Family members serving this caregiving role face the same work/family pressures as parents with minor children, and when they also have caregiving responsibilities for minor children, their family burdens in effect are compounded. Nationally, more than half of persons who provide unpaid care to an adult or to a child with special needs are employed outside the home, with the large majority of those employees working full time. Approximately 32,000 San Franciscans who work outside the home live with family members 65 years and older. Increasingly, caregivers must care for both their own children and adult family members at the same time—approximately 11 million caregivers known as “sandwich caregivers” care for both a child and an adult family member. (d) Many employees who live outside city centers have lengthy commutes to their jobs. Traffic patterns during rush hour elongate those commutes. At the same time, some employees, especially those in low-wage jobs, have difficulty reaching their workplaces through public transportation during off-peak shifts that start in the evening or early morning. Commutes of long duration leave less time for employees to balance work and caregiving responsibilities. Further, to the extent rigid employment schedules and the absence of telecommute options for employees contribute to delays attendant to rush-hour traffic, they heighten the tension between work and family responsibilities that so many workers face. Moreover, to the extent flexible working hours and telecommuting options will reduce demands on streets and highways and mass transportation systems during rush hour, San Francisco and the Bay Area will likely benefit from both an environmental and economic standpoint. (e) An employee’s actual or perceived status as a caregiver can create workplace and pay inequities, which often operate to the detriment of women and their families because of the continuing primary role of women as caregivers in the United States. These problems are most obvious when an employer refuses to hire or promote an employee because of that person’s family or other caregiving responsibilities. But pay inequity may arise even if an employer does not consciously intend to place workers at a disadvantage because of their actual or perceived status as caregivers. For example, employers may perceive mothers as less committed to their work due to stereotypes rather than performance, which may hinder these employees’ career advancement. Employees with caregiving responsibilities may be channeled into or may themselves gravitate toward lower-paying assignments or career paths that they or their employer view as more compatible with family needs. Employees may temporarily drop out of the workforce because there is insufficient workplace flexibility, and when they return to the workforce they may be unable to catch up to the pay rates of employees performing the same or similar work who did not leave. Out-of-pocket caregiving expenses may compound these economic burdens. A 2021 AARP report estimated that unpaid caregivers average more than $7,000 per year in out-of-pocket expenses, such as paying for medical expenses, in-home care, and housing expenses for the person needing care. (f) The current cultural climate within many businesses idealizes the employee who works full-time and long hours, is available for extra work hours on short notice, and has few if any commitments outside of work that would take precedence over work responsibilities. These values are based in large part on a traditional, gendered division of labor. Historically, men could comply with these idealized worker norms because women performed full-time childcare and domestic duties. Yet, while women’s participation in the paid labor market is now widespread, women continue to take on childcare and household duties, do the lion’s share of housework, provide the majority of physical and emotional care for children, and take time off to care for sick family members and to attend to other family needs. (g) Many employers expect that employees will outsource childcare and other caregiving responsibilities, without considering that such costs may constitute an unsustainable proportion of family income relative to other expenses. Other employers expect family members of the employee to assume childcare and other caregiving responsibilities, without considering that such family members may not exist, or may themselves have work responsibilities, caregiving responsibilities, or their own need for care that foreclose their assuming these functions. (h) In response to the needs of the modern workforce, some employers have instituted flexible work arrangements that alter the time or place at which work is conducted, or the amount of work that is conducted, to allow employees to more easily meet the needs of both work and family life. But even when employers offer flexible workplace arrangements, employees may not avail themselves of such arrangements for reasons such as stigma and lack of consistent consideration by the employer of such requests. Employees who seek flexible work arrangements may endure a “flexibility bias” or “flexibility stigma” in which they are discredited and devalued in the workplace. Aware of this problem, some employees forgo flexible work opportunities. And many employees do not have such opportunities, because many employers do not systematically offer or consider requests for flexible working arrangements but instead leave requests from employees to the discretion of an individual manager, or do not even allow consideration of such requests. This voluntary patchwork system

ware of this problem, some employees forgo flexible work opportunities. And many employees do not have such opportunities, because many employers do not systematically offer or consider requests for flexible working arrangements but instead leave requests from employees to the discretion of an individual manager, or do not even allow consideration of such requests. This voluntary patchwork system of accommodating employees’ needs for flexible working arrangements falls far short of meeting those needs. (i) While a broad range of employees are adversely affected by rigid work and schedule arrangements, some categories of workers are hit harder than others. Workers who lack access to flexible work schedules are disproportionately low-wage workers, female workers, and workers of color. Employees with a college degree are nearly twice as likely to be able to change their schedules than those with less than a high school degree. (j) Experience with laws in other countries to increase workplace flexibility has been overwhelmingly positive. Workplace flexibility has been shown to benefit employers and employees, as well as the environment. In recent years, the United Kingdom, Australia, Northern Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and New Zealand have pioneered model workplace laws that grant parent and caregiver workers the right to request flexible working arrangements. In Great Britain, in the first year after implementing the right to request a flexible working arrangement, a million parents came forward, and nearly all requests were granted with little opposition on the part of employers. The experiences of these countries have been so successful that some countries are expanding their laws from parents and caregivers to all employees. Already in Belgium, France, Germany, New Zealand, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, flexible workplace arrangements are open to all employees of most employers and are not targeted to employees with childcare or caregiving responsibilities. (k) Perhaps in part because of these progressive laws in other countries, and in part due to a shortage or lack of family-friendly employment policies in the United States, the percentage of working-age American women in the workforce has been on the decline relative to other developed countries. For American women, the tension between workplace demands and caregiving responsibilities cuts in both directions. Many women who work are stretched thin on both fronts. And some women forgo work, or work only intermittently, to make it possible for them to serve as family caregivers, but they and their families suffer economic harm as a result. (l) Similar “right to request” legislation at the Federal level was introduced in 2007 by then-U.S. Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama; the same bill has been introduced several times since 2007, most recently by Congressional Representative Carolyn Maloney in May 2021. As this latest effort indicates, dDespite1 a 2010 White House summit on this topic, these Congressional attempts have not

been successful, although in 2014 President Obama extended to federal employees a right to request flexibility in working arrangements. Also in 2014, the State of Vermont became the first jurisdiction in the United States to pass a “right to request” law modeled after the Congressional bill. New Hampshire enacted similar legislation in 2016. A growing number of state and local governments have also passed laws explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on caregiver status. (m) Studies indicate that providing employees with access to flexible work arrangements reduces the conflicts many face between their work responsibilities and their family obligations, with the effect of enhancing employee satisfaction and morale and overall well-being, possibly even to the point of reducing mental health problems among employees. (n) Flexible work arrangements also benefit businesses at minimal cost. Implementing workplace flexibility helps businesses attract and retain key talent, increase employee retention and reduce turnover, reduce overtime needs, reduce absenteeism, and enhance employee productivity, effectiveness, and engagement. Further, according to the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, as more businesses adopt flexibility practices, the benefits to society, in the form of reduced automobile traffic, improved employment outcomes, and more efficient allocation of employees to employers, may even be greater than the gains to individual businesses and employees. (o) The COVID-19 pandemic forced many businesses and government entities to adopt full-time work from home and other workplace flexibilities for their employees. Despite widespread closures and disruptions among schools and child care providers, many employers found that employees were more productive and effective working from home. As a result, many employers have announced that they will continue workplace flexibilities after the pandemic, particularly regarding remote work. President Biden has announced that the federal government will permanently offer enhanced telework opportunities. Salesforce, Square, Dropbox, Coinbase, Yelp, Twitter, Facebook, and numerous other corporations have announced plans to let most employees work mostly or entirely from home. Often these changes are being implemented alongside other flexibilities in when and how employees work. For employees working in positions where remote work is simply not possible, the ability to request flexibility or predictability may be especially critical. (p) Despite many employers voluntarily expanding flexibility, particularly in terms of remote work, legal protections of caregivers remain inadequate. In July 2021, the Youth, Young Adult, and Families Committee of the Board of Supervisors held a hearing on the Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance, including considering ways to strengthen the important protections it provides. The amendments to this Article 32 strengthen the Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance by providing that employees shall be permitted a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement unless the arrangement would cause the employer undue hardship, requiring an interactive process before a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement may be rejected, and strengthening enforcement of this Article, among other changes. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.2 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; amended by Ord. 39-22, File No. 211296, App. 3/14/2022, Eff. 4/14/2022, Oper. 7/13/2022; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024) CODIFICATION NOTE

1. So in Ord. 39-22.

For purposes of this Article 32, the following definitions apply. “Agency” means the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement or any successor department or office. “Caregiver” means an Employee who is a primary contributor to the ongoing care of any of the following: (1) A Child or Children for whom the Employee has assumed parental responsibility. (2) A person or persons with a Serious Health Condition in a Family Relationship with the Caregiver. (3) A person who is age 65 or older and in a Family Relationship with a Caregiver. “Child” and “Children” mean a biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis to that child, who is under 18 years of age. “City” means the City and County of San Francisco. “Director” means the Director of the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement or the Director’s designee. “Employee” means any person who is employed by an Employer, who regularly works at least eight hours per week within the geographic boundaries of the City for the Employer including part-time employees, provided that Telework shall be considered work within the geographic boundaries of the City. “Employee” includes a participant in a Welfare-to-Work Program when the participant is engaged in work activity that would be considered “employment” under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and any applicable U.S. Department of Labor Guidelines. “Welfare-to-Work Program” shall include any public assistance program administered by the Human Services Agency, including but not limited to CalWORKS, and any successor programs that are substantially similar, that require a public assistance applicant or recipient to work in exchange for their grant. “Employer” means the City, or any person as defined in Section 18 of the California Labor Code who regularly employs 20 or more employees, regardless of location, including an agent of that Employer and corporate officers or executives who directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary services or staffing agency or similar entity, employ or exercise control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of an Employee. The term “Employer” shall also include any successor in interest of an Employer. The term “Employer” shall not include the state or federal government or any local government entity other than the City. “Family Relationship” means a relationship in which a Caregiver is related by blood, legal custody, marriage, or domestic partnerships, as defined in San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 62 or California Family Code Section 297, as either may be amended from time to time, to another person as a spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, sibling, grandchild, or grandparent.

“Flexible Working Arrangement” means a change in an Employee’s terms and conditions of employment that provides flexibility to assist an Employee with caregiving responsibilities. Operative Date of Amendments1 means 90 days after the effective date of the ordinance in Board File No. 211296 amending this Article 32 that was introduced at the Board of Supervisors on December 14, 2021. “Predictable Working Arrangement” means a change in an Employee’s terms and conditions of employment that provides scheduling predictability to assist that Employee with caregiving responsibilities. “Serious Health Condition” means an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves either of the following: (1) Inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential health care facility. (2) Continuing treatment or continuing supervision by a health care provider. “Telework” means an Employee’s work for an Employer from the Employee’s residence or other location that is not an office or worksite of the Employer if the Employer maintains an office or worksite within the geographic boundaries of the City at which the Employee may work, or prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was permitted to work. “Work Schedule” means those days and times within a work period that an Employee is required by an Employer to perform the duties of the Employee’s employment for which the Employee will receive compensation. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.3 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; amended by Ord. 3-14, File No. 131191, App. 1/14/2014, Eff. 2/13/2014; Ord. 39-22, File No. 211296, App. 3/14/2022, Eff. 4/14/2022, Oper. 7/13/2022; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024) CODIFICATION NOTE

1. So in Ord. 39-22.

ARRANGEMENT. (a) Beginning on the Operative Date of Amendments, except as provided in Section 32.5, a person who has been an Employee of an Employer for six months or more shall be permitted a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement to assist with caregiving responsibilities for 1) a Child or Children for whom the Employee has assumed parental responsibility, 2) a person or persons with a Serious Health Condition in a Family Relationship with the Employee, or 3) a person or persons age 65 or older in a Family Relationship with the Employee. (b) An Employee shall submit to the Employer a notice of the Employee’s need for a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement under this Section 32.4, which shall be in writing and specify the arrangement requested. The arrangement may include, but is not limited to, a change in the Employee’s terms and conditions of employment as they relate to the number of hours the Employee is required to work, which may include by way of example and not limitation part-time work, part-year employment, or job sharing arrangements; the Employee’s work schedule, which may include modified hours, variable hours, predictable hours, or other schedule changes or flexibilities; the Employee’s work location, which may include by way of example and not limitation Telework; and modifying the Employee’s work assignments or duties. The notice shall state the date on which the Employee requests that the arrangement becomes effective and the duration of the arrangement, and the notice shall explain how the request is related to care giving. (c) An Employer may require an Employee to attest to or verify the Employee’s caregiving responsibilities prior to agreeing to a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement. (d) An Employee may announce the initial notice orally, after which the Employer shall either, in writing or orally, refer the Employee to the posting required by Section 32.8 and instruct the Employee to prepare and submit a written notice under subsection (b). (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.4 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; amended by Ord. 39-22, File No. 211296, App. 3/14/2022, Eff. 4/14/2022, Oper. 7/13/2022; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

WORKING ARRANGEMENT. (a) Beginning on the Operative Date of Amendments, an Employer to whom an Employee submits a notice under Section 32.4 may elect to meet with the Employee regarding a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement within 14 days of the oral or written notice. (b) An Employer must respond in writing within 21 days of the Employee’s oral or written notice under Section 32.4. The deadline in this Section 32.5(b) may be extended by agreement with the Employee confirmed in writing. (c) Decision or Interactive Process. (1) An Employer who agrees to the Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement shall confirm the arrangement in writing to the Employee. (2) An Employer who does not agree to the Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement shall engage in an interactive process with the Employee to attempt in good faith to determine a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement that is acceptable to both the Employee and Employer. (3) An Employer may deny a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement that would be acceptable to the Employee only if granting such

an arrangement would cause the Employer undue hardship by causing the Employer significant expense or operational difficulty when considered in relation to the size, financial resources, nature, or structure of the Employer’s business. An Employer must explain the denial in a written response that sets out the basis for the denial and notifies the Employee of the right to request reconsideration by the Employer under Section 32.6 and the right to file a complaint under Section 32.10, and includes a copy of the notice under Section 32.8. Bases for undue hardship may include, but are not limited to, the following: (A) The identifiable costs directly caused by the Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement, including but not limited to the cost of productivity loss, retraining or hiring Employees, or transferring Employees from one facility to another facility. (B) Detrimental effect on ability to meet customer or client demands. (C) Inability to organize work among other Employees. (D) Insufficiency of work to be performed during the time or at the location the Employee proposes to work. (d) A Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement may be altered by mutual agreement of the Employer and Employee. An Employer who concludes that a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement is causing the Employer undue hardship shall engage in an interactive process with the Employee to attempt in good faith to determine a different Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement that would be acceptable to both the Employee and Employer. If such interactive process is unsuccessful in determining a different Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement, an Employer may revoke the existing Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement after the interactive process with 14 days written notice to the Employee. (e) For an Employer who grants a Predictable Working Arrangement, if the Employer has insufficient work for the Employee during the period of the Predictable Working Arrangement, nothing in this Article 32 requires the Employer to compensate the Employee during such period of insufficient work. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.5 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; amended by Ord. 39-22, File No. 211296, App. 3/14/2022, Eff. 4/14/2022, Oper. 7/13/2022; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

DENIAL OF FLEXIBLE OR PREDICTABLE WORKING ARRANGEMENT. (a) An Employee whose Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement has been denied may submit a request for reconsideration to the Employer in writing within 30 days of the decision. (b) If an Employee submits a request for reconsideration under this Section 32.6, the Employer must arrange a meeting to discuss said request to take place within 21 days after receiving the request. (c) With respect to any notice provided under Section 32.4 on or after the Operative Date of Amendments, the Employer must inform the Employee of the Employer’s final decision in writing within 14 days after the meeting to discuss the request for reconsideration. If the request for reconsideration is denied, this notice must explain the Employer’s basis for concluding that a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement would cause the Employer undue hardship and provide the Employee notice of the Employee’s right to file a complaint with the Agency. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.6 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; amended by Ord. 39-22, File No. 211296, App. 3/14/2022, Eff. 4/14/2022, Oper. 7/13/2022; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

RETALIATION PROHIBITED. (a) It shall be unlawful for an Employer or any other person to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right protected under this Article 32. (b) It shall be unlawful for an Employer to discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or otherwise take adverse employment action against any person on the basis of Caregiver status or in retaliation for exercising rights protected under this Article 32. Such rights include but are not limited to: (1) the right to a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement under this Article; (2) the right to request reconsideration of the denial of a request for a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement under this Article; (3) the right to file a complaint with the Agency alleging a violation of any provision of this Article; (4) the right to inform any person about an Employer’s alleged violation of this Article; (5) the right to cooperate with the Agency or other persons in the investigation or prosecution of any alleged violation of this Article; (6) the right to oppose any policy, practice, or act that is unlawful under this Article; or (7) the right to inform any person of his or her rights under this Article. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.7 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; amended by Ord. 39-22, File No. 211296, App. 3/14/2022, Eff. 4/14/2022, Oper. 7/13/2022; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

(a) The Agency shall, by the operative date of this Article, publish and make available to Employers, in all languages spoken by more than 5% of the San Francisco workforce, a notice suitable for posting by Employers in the workplace informing Employees of their rights under this Article. The Agency shall update this notice on December 1 of any year in which there is a change in the languages spoken by more than 5% of the San Francisco workforce. In its discretion, the Agency may combine the notice required herein with the notice required by Section 1.5(a) and/or 11.5(a) of the Labor and Employment Code or any other Agency notice that Employers are required to post in the workplace. (b) Every Employer shall post in a conspicuous place at any workplace or job site where any Employee works the notice required by subsection (a). Every Employer shall post this notice in English, Spanish, Chinese, and any language spoken by at least 5% of the Employees at the workplace or job site. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.8 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

Employers shall retain documentation required under this Article for a period of three years from the date of the request for a Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement, and shall allow the Agency access to such records, with appropriate notice and at a mutually agreeable time, to monitor compliance with the requirements of this Article. When an issue arises as to an alleged violation of an Employee’s rights under this Article, if the Employer has failed to maintain or retain documentation required under this Article, or does not allow the Agency reasonable access to such records, it shall be presumed that the Employer has violated this Article, absent clear and convincing evidence otherwise. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.9 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

(a) Administrative Enforcement. (1) The Agency is authorized to take appropriate steps to enforce this Article 32 and coordinate enforcement of this Article. The Agency may investigate possible violations of this Article. Where the Agency has reason to believe that a violation has occurred, it may order any appropriate temporary or interim relief to mitigate the violation or maintain the status quo pending completion of a full investigation or hearing. (2) Where the Agency determines that a violation has occurred, it may issue a determination and order any appropriate relief. The Agency may impose an administrative penalty, under California Constitution Article XIIIC, Section 1(e)(5), requiring the Employer to pay to each Employee or person whose rights under this Article were violated up to $50 for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, or up to the cost of care the Employee or person whose rights were violated incurred due to the violation, if greater. (3) Where prompt compliance is not forthcoming, the Agency may take any appropriate enforcement action to secure compliance, including initiating a civil action pursuant to Section 32.10(b). In order to compensate the City for the costs of investigating and remedying the violation, and to further penalize the violating Employer, the Agency may also order the violating Employer or person to pay to the City, under California Constitution Article XIIIC, Section 1(e)(5), a sum of not more than $50 for each day or portion thereof and for each Employee or person as to whom the violation occurred or continued, or up to the City’s costs for the investigation and remedying of the violation, if greater. Such funds shall be allocated to the Agency and used to offset the costs of implementing and enforcing this Article 32 and other ordinances the Agency enforces. (4) An Employee or other person may report to the Agency any suspected violation of this Article, but if an Employee is reporting a violation pertaining to that Employee’s own request for Flexible or Predictable Working Arrangement, that Employee must first have submitted a request for reconsideration to the Employer under Section 32.6. The Agency shall encourage reporting pursuant to this subsection by keeping confidential, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable laws, the name and other identifying information of the Employee or person reporting the violation; provided however, that with the authorization of such person, the Agency may disclose the person’s name and identifying information as necessary to enforce this Article or for other appropriate purposes. The filing of a report of a suspected violation by an Employee does not create any right of appeal to the Agency by the Employee; based on its sole discretion, the Agency may decide whether to investigate or pursue a violation of this Article. (5) In accordance with the procedures described in Section 32.14, the Director shall establish rules governing the administrative process for determining and appealing violations of this Article. The rules shall include procedures for: (A) providing the Employer with notice that it may have violated this Article; (B) providing the Employer with a right to respond to the notice; (C) providing the Employer with notice of the Agency’s determination of a violation, which shall specify a reasonable time period for payment of any relief ordered; and

(D) providing the Employer with an opportunity to appeal the Agency’s determination to a hearing officer, not employed by the Agency, who is appointed by the Controller or the Controller’s designee. (6) If there is no appeal of the Agency’s determination of a violation, that determination shall constitute the City’s final administrative decision. An Employer’s failure to appeal the Agency’s determination of a violation shall constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which shall serve as a complete defense to any petition or claim brought by the Employer against the City regarding the Agency’s determination of a violation. (7) If there is an appeal of the Agency’s determination of a violation, the hearing before the hearing officer shall be conducted in a manner that satisfies the requirements of due process. In any such hearing, the Agency’s determination of a violation shall be considered prima facie evidence of a violation, and the Employer shall have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s determination of a violation is incorrect. The hearing officer’s decision of the appeal shall constitute the City’s final administrative decision. The sole means of review of the City’s final decision, rendered by the hearing officer, shall be by filing in the San Francisco Superior Court a petition for writ of mandate under Section 1094.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The Agency shall notify the Employer of this right of review after issuance of the City’s final administrative decision by the hearing officer. (b) Civil Enforcement. Where an Employer fails to comply with a final administrative decision within the time period required therein, the Agency may take any appropriate enforcement action to secure compliance, including referring the action to the City Attorney to seek to enforce the final administrative decision in a court of law or equity and, except where prohibited by State or Federal law, requesting that City agencies or departments revoke or suspend any registration certificates, permits, or licenses held or requested by the Covered Employer until such time as the violation is remedied. Upon prevailing in a civil action, the City shall be entitled to such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, but not limited to: reinstatement of an Employee; back pay; the payment of benefits or pay unlawfully withheld; the payment of an additional sum as liquidated damages in the amount of $50 to each Employee or person whose rights under this Article 32 were violated for each day such violation continued or was permitted to continue, or up to the cost of care the Employee or person whose rights were violated incurred due to the violation, if greater; appropriate injunctive relief; and, further, shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. (c) Interest. In any administrative or civil action brought under this Article 32, the Agency or court, as the case may be, shall award interest on all amounts due and unpaid at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the California Civil Code. (d) Remedies Cumulative. The remedies, penalties, and procedures provided under this Article 32 are cumulative. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.10 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; amended by Ord. 39-22, File No. 211296, App. 3/14/2022, Eff. 4/14/2022, Oper. 7/13/2022; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY. (a) An appointing officer may request an exemption from this Article from the Director of Human Resources for certain classifications of City employees working in public health or public safety functions, based upon operational requirements according to criteria developed by the Director of Human Resources. Such criteria shall promote efficiency and advance public safety or public health. (b) The Agency, in consultation with the Director of Human Resources, may exempt non-City Employees working in public safety or public health functions, upon request of those non-City Employers, based upon operational requirements according to criteria developed by the Agency and the Director of Human Resources. Such criteria shall promote efficiency and advance public safety or public health. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.11 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

All and any portions of the applicable requirements of this Article shall not apply to Employees covered by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement to the extent that such requirements are expressly waived in the collective bargaining agreement in clear and unambiguous terms. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.12 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

This Article provides minimum employment requirements pertaining to Caregivers and Employees and shall not be construed to preempt, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any other law, regulation, requirement, policy, or standard, or provision of a collective bargaining agreement, that provides for greater or other rights of or protections for Caregivers or Employees, or that extends other rights or protections to Employees. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.13 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

The Director shall have authority to issue regulations or develop guidelines that implement provisions of this Article. Notwithstanding the definition of “Director” in this Article, a designee of the Director shall not have authority under the foregoing sentence of this Section; but a designee of the Director shall have authority to conduct hearings leading to the adoption of regulations or guidelines. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.14 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

The Department on the Status of Women and the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement shall jointly create an outreach and community engagement program to educate and provide technical support to Employees and Employers about their rights and obligations under this Article. This outreach program shall be conducted in multiple languages to the extent feasible and shall include media, trainings and materials accessible to the diversity of Employees and Employers in San Francisco. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.15 by Ord. 209-13 File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; amended by Ord. 39-22, File No. 211296, App. 3/14/2022, Eff. 4/14/2022, Oper. 7/13/2022; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any requirement, power, or duty in conflict with federal or state law. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.16 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

WELFARE. In enacting and implementing this Article, the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. The City is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and employees, an obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages to any person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury. This Article does not create a legally enforceable right against the City. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.17 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)

If any of the parts or provisions of this Article (including sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words, numbers) or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Article, including the application of such part or provisions to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Article are severable. (Added as Administrative Code Sec. 12Z.18 by Ord. 209-13, File No. 130785, App. 10/9/2013, Eff. 11/8/2013, Oper. 1/1/2014; redesignated by Ord. 221-23, File No. 230835, App. 11/3/2023, Eff. 12/4/2023, Oper. 1/4/2024)