AB 2179 updates California’s workplace violence restraining order law, Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.8, and a related sheriff/marshal fee statute in Government Code Section 6103.2. The bill keeps the existing framework that allows an employer or collective bargaining representative to seek temporary restraining orders and orders after hearing when an employee has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence at work, while adding new procedural options for how those cases are handled in court.
The main policy changes are procedural and access-oriented. Beginning July 1, 2027, parties and witnesses in these proceedings may appear remotely at hearings, and courts may not charge a fee for remote appearance. Courts must also permit electronic filing of petitions and related documents, provide electronic copies of filing materials and orders to e-filers, and develop local rules and instructions for remote participation. The Judicial Council is directed to create implementing forms and rules by January 1, 2028. The bill also preserves and clarifies no-fee treatment for certain filings and service of process in workplace violence, stalking, and related protective-order matters, including sheriff or marshal service fees under specified conditions.
In practical terms, the bill would affect employers, employees, unions, courts, and law enforcement by making workplace restraining-order proceedings easier to file and attend without in-person travel. It also reinforces existing enforcement mechanisms, including service, CLETS transmission, firearm restrictions, and penalties for violating orders. The bill does not expand an employer’s underlying duty to provide a safe workplace, and it continues to bar orders that would restrict constitutionally protected or labor-protected activity.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history is strongly supportive. The bill advanced unanimously in committee votes shown in the record, first 12-0 and then 13-0, and there is no transcript evidence of opposition in the materials provided. That suggests broad agreement on the bill’s goal of improving access to protective-order proceedings and reducing procedural barriers for victims and witnesses.
No major points of contention are documented in the provided materials, but the structure of the bill suggests the likely policy balance: expanding remote and electronic access while preserving due process protections for respondents. The bill maintains notice, service, hearing, and response requirements, and it expressly avoids authorizing restrictions on protected speech or lawful labor activity. Any debate would likely center on court administration, implementation costs, and ensuring remote participation does not compromise fairness or safety.
AB 2179 would amend Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.8, which governs workplace violence restraining orders, by adding remote-hearing rights, mandatory electronic filing, and related Judicial Council rulemaking and form requirements effective July 1, 2027. It would also amend Government Code Section 6103.2 to align sheriff/marshal fee rules with the bill’s no-fee service provisions for certain protective-order cases. The bill would affect court procedures statewide, but it does not create a new category of restraining order or materially change the substantive standards for obtaining one.
The available legislative history shows clear support: the bill passed committee votes unanimously, with no recorded dissent in the provided materials. The absence of committee transcript opposition and the strong vote margins indicate a favorable consensus around improving access to workplace violence protective orders through remote appearances and electronic filing.
No specific opposition is documented in the provided record. The most plausible areas of concern are implementation-related rather than substantive: whether courts can support remote hearings and e-filing without disrupting existing procedures, how to protect due process and confidentiality in remote proceedings, and how to manage fee waivers and sheriff/marshal service obligations. The bill itself anticipates some of those concerns by requiring local rules, Judicial Council forms, and preserving existing notice and service protections.