AB1073 - Employment Development Department: disclosure of wage information: qualified third-party vendors.

Amended IN Assembly January 05, 2026 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Bill No. 1073 Introduced by Assembly Member Ávila Farías February 20, 2025 An act to amend, repeal, and add Section 170.6 of, and to add and repeal Section 170.6.1 of, the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to courts. An act to add Section 1094.1 to the Unemployment Insurance Code, relating to privacy. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1073, as amended, Ávila Farías. Judicial officers: disqualification. Employment Development Department: disclosure of wage information: qualified third-party vendors. Under existing law, the information obtained in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Code is for the exclusive use and information of the Director of Employment Development in the discharge of the director’s duties and is not open to the public. Existing law permits the use of the information for specified purposes, including enabling the California Workforce Development Board and other entities to access any relevant quarterly wage data necessary for the evaluation and reporting of specified workforce program performance outcomes. Existing law makes it a crime for any person to knowingly access, use, or disclose this confidential information without authorization. This bill would require the Employment Development Department to release an employee’s wage information to a qualified third-party vendor if the employee has provided the department written permission for that release. The bill would require the department to allow, at the request of the employee, the electronic transmission of the employee’s wage information directly to or through a qualified third-party vendor for permissible uses, as defined. The bill would require the department to enter into an agreement with a qualified third-party vendor to allow for electronic transmission of an employee’s wage information for permissible uses. The bill would require a qualified third-party vendor to use the employee’s wage information for a permissible use and to share the employee’s wage information with a subscriber, subject to specified restrictions the bill would impose on the subscriber. The bill would provide that wage information is confidential, as specified. This bill would prohibit the department from expending any state funds to execute the terms of the agreement with a qualified third-party vendor. The bill would require the department to charge and collect fees from a qualified third-party vendor to cover startup costs and the expenses incurred in the administration of these provisions, as specified. The bill would make any person who knowingly accesses, uses, or discloses any information made confidential by the bill’s provisions without authorization, as provided, guilty of a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would define various terms for purposes of these provisions. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Existing law authorizes a party or attorney in an action or proceeding to move to disqualify a judge, court commissioner, or referee for prejudice against a party or attorney or the interest of a party or attorney, as specified. Prejudice may be established by an oral or written motion without notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, or an oral statement under oath, that the judge, court commissioner, or referee is prejudiced against a party or attorney, or the interest of the party or attorney, so that the party or attorney cannot, or believes that they cannot, have a fair and impartial trial or hearing. Existing law requires, in specified circumstances, the Chair of the Judicial Council to assign some other judge, court commissioner, or referee to try the cause or hear the matter as promptly as possible. This bill would extend these provisions to authorize a party or attorney to disqualify a justice or justices of an appellate court for prejudice against a party or attorney, or the interest of a party or attorney, as specified. The bill would make related findings and declarations. This bill would require, following reversal by the California Supreme Court and remand to a court of appeal for further proceedings, other than of a ministerial nature, the presiding justice of the court of appeal to assign the case to a panel of three justices and to notify the parties of the assignment within 30 days of issuance of the remittitur to the court of appeal. The bill would authorize a motion directed to one or more justices of a court of appeal to only be made following reversal by the California Supreme Court of a court of appeal’s decision, where the court of appeal is required to conduct further proceedings other than of a ministerial nature, and may only be directed to the justice or justices who authored or concurred in the prior decision and who is or are assigned to further consider the matter. The bill would authorize the party who obtained the reversal to make that motion regardless of whether that party or side has previously done so. The bill would require, for cases reversed on or after January 1, 2026, the motion to be made within 15 days after the party or the party’s attorney has been notified of the assignment. The bill would require, for cases reversed before January 1, 2026, and remaining pending as of the effective date of this act, the motion to be made on or before January 16, 2026. The bill would authorize, upon presentation of a motion directed to one or more justices of a court of appeal, the presiding justice to, at the presiding justice’s discretion, assign up to 3 new justices regardless of the number of justices to whom the motion is directed. This bill would require, if the motion is duly presented and the affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury is duly filed or an oral statement under oath is duly made, that the presiding justice assign other justice or justices or transfer the case to another panel of justices. The bill would also require, in specified circumstances, the Chair of the Judicial Council to assign some other justice or justices to hear the matter as promptly as possible. The bill would make the above provisions operative from January 1, 2026, until January 1, 2031. The bill would require the California Law Revision Commission to deliver, on or before September 30, 2028, a study regarding the recusal of judicial officers for prejudice and conflict of interest, as specified. The bill would require the California Law Revision Commission to consult with the Commission on Judicial Performance in developing the study. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on September 30, 2031, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2032. Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO YES Bill Text The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 1094.1 is added to the Unemployment Insurance Code, to read: 1094.1. (a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: (1) “Permissible use” means verifying an employee’s wages or employer or using the employee’s wage information for credit granting and related account maintenance, residential leasing, employment screening, or insurance or government transactions, consistent with the purposes set forth in the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq.). (2) “Qualified third-party vendor” means a consumer reporting agency engaged in the business of furnishing consumer reports and who meets all of the following criteria: (A) Has executed contracts in place for the same or substantially similar service with at least three other states. (B) Has completed systems integration for the same or substantially similar service in one or more states. (C) Has had its business model and data sharing agreements and other collateral materials reviewed for conformance, either formally or informally, by the United States Department of Labor and found to be in conformity with relevant federal rules and regulations. (3) “Subscriber” means a person or entity that pays a fee to a qualified third-party vendor to obtain consumer reports or other information from the qualified third-party vendor. (4) “Wage information” means the employee’s full name, social security number, the employer’s name, and the total amount of wages paid to that employee each quarter, as reported to the department by the employer in its quarterly contribution return and report of wages. (b) The department shall release an employee’s wage information to a qualified third-party vendor if the employee has provided the department written permission for that release. (c) The department shall provide the employee’s wage information to the employee or their representative without charge. (d) The department shall allow, at the request of the employee, the electronic transmission of the employee’s wage information, directly to or through a qualified third-party vendor, for permissible uses. (e) The department shall enter into an agreement with a qualified third-party vendor to allow for electronic transmission of an employee’s wage information for permissible uses. (f) The qualified third-party vendor shall use the employee’s wage information received from the department pursuant to this section for a permissible use and may share the employee’s wage information with a subscriber subject to subdivision (g). (g) (1) A subscriber shall not request or receive wage information from a qualified third-party vendor pursuant to subdivision (f) unless the request is for a permissible use, and shall not use that wage information unless the use is a permissible use. (2) A subscriber shall only receive wage information about an employee from a qualified third-party vendor pursuant to subdivision (f) if the employee has provided written permission that authorizes the release of that employee’s wage information to a subscriber. (3) A subscriber shall not resell or redisclose wage information received from a qualified third-party vendor. (h) All wage information reported to the department and provided to a qualified third-party vendor pursuant to this section shall be confidential and shall remain subject to the confidentiality provisions contained in applicable federal and state laws. (i) The qualified third-party vendor shall require a person who receives wage information to keep that information confidential and to use the information only for the designated permissible use. (j) The department shall not expend any state funds to execute the terms of the agreement with the qualified third-party vendor. (k) The department, consistent with Part 603 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, shall charge and collect fees from a qualified third-party vendor to cover startup costs and the expenses incurred in preparation for releasing an employee’s wage information to a qualified third party for permissible uses in the administration of this section, not to exceed the reasonable costs of that administration. (l) Any person who knowingly accesses, uses, or discloses any information made confidential pursuant to this section without authorization pursuant to this section is in violation of this section and is guilty of a misdemeanor. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) As California courts have recognized, the impulse of a judge to disfavor a litigant who prompted a higher court to reverse that judge’s decision is quite human. (2) Judicial bias is antithetical to the administration of justice and a well-functioning judicial system, and undermines the public’s trust in the judiciary. (3) Judicial bias is particularly a threat to the administration of justice in the courts of appeal, and especially in cases concerning voting rights, workers’ rights, and environmental justice. (4) Judicial bias in the courts of appeal can result in the delay of voting rights, workers’ rights, and environmental justice. This occurred in the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 case, Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica (2023) 15 Cal.5th 292, following the California Supreme Court’s reversal of the court of appeal’s decision, through the court of appeal’s refusal to follow the instruction of the California Supreme Court. Such delay is particularly harmful in voting rights cases because elections are held every two years while those cases remain pending. (5) The dilution of votes of a protected class, in even a single election, in violation of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, is a matter of statewide concern. A concern that the Legislature must address. (6) A comprehensive evaluation of judicial recusal and disqualification at all levels of California courts, including the utility of peremptory challenges at the outset of cases as well as following reversal by a higher court, is necessary to refine the processes in those courts and promote the efficient administration of justice. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature to eliminate, insofar as possible, the impact of judicial bias, at all levels of the judiciary, and to promote the efficient administration of justice in California courts. SEC. 2. Section 170.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to read: 170.6. (a) (1) A judge, court commissioner, or referee of a superior court of the State of California, or justice of a court of appeal of the State of California, shall not try a civil or criminal action or special proceeding of any kind or character nor hear any matter therein that involves a contested issue of law or fact when it is established as provided in this section that the judge, justice, or court commissioner is prejudiced against a party or attorney or the interest of a party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding. (2) A party to, or an attorney appearing in, an action or proceeding may establish this prejudice by an oral or written motion without prior notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, or an oral statement under oath, that the judge, justice, court commissioner, or referee before whom the action or proceeding [Text truncated for display. Full text available on Congress.gov.]