California Assembly Bill AB332

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/25
• Refer: 3/13/25
• Report Pass: 3/13/25
• Refer: 3/17/25
• Failed: 2/2/26

Caption

An act to amend Section 9110 1698.9 of the Labor Code, relating to employment safety. employment.

Summary

AB 332 amends two separate Labor Code provisions affecting agricultural workers and farm labor contractors. First, it updates wildfire smoke training requirements for agricultural employees by defining key terms such as “agricultural employee” and “wildfire smoke,” directing the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to review and update the required training content, and requiring employers to provide the training in a language and manner readily understandable to workers, including the use of pictograms when needed. Second, the bill changes successor-liability rules for farm labor contractors. It makes it easier for a successor contractor to claim an affirmative defense to liability for a predecessor’s unpaid wages or penalties by reducing from three years to one year the period a contractor must have operated with a valid license and meet related conditions. At the same time, it expands the definition of “immediate family member” for successor-liability purposes to include step-parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, half-siblings, and step-grandparents, which broadens the circumstances under which a successor may be held liable for a predecessor’s wage obligations.

Impact

The bill would amend Labor Code Section 1698.9, which governs when a successor farm labor contractor is liable for a predecessor’s unpaid wages and penalties, and Labor Code Section 9110, which concerns wildfire smoke training for agricultural employees. In practical terms, it narrows one defense available to successor contractors by shortening the required period of prior licensed operation from three years to one year, while also expanding the family relationships that can trigger successor liability. It also reinforces employer training obligations for agricultural workers exposed to wildfire smoke and confirms that no state reimbursement is required for local costs associated with the bill’s criminal-law changes.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee debate in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a worker-protection and enforcement bill, with a focus on wage recovery for agricultural workers and clearer wildfire smoke training requirements. The absence of recorded votes or testimony means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the provided context, but the bill’s structure suggests an intent to strengthen labor protections rather than reduce them.

Contention

The main policy tension in AB 332 is between worker protection and contractor flexibility. Supporters would likely favor the broader successor-liability rules because they make it harder for farm labor contractors to evade unpaid wage obligations by reorganizing under a new entity or through relatives. Potential opponents would likely object to the reduced affirmative-defense period and the expanded family-member definition, arguing that these changes increase liability exposure for legitimate business transitions and may sweep in more family-run operations. The wildfire smoke training provisions are less likely to be controversial, as they largely codify and clarify existing safety training expectations for agricultural employers.