AB 2524 amends Section 49114 of the California Education Code to change a gendered pronoun (“his”) to a gender-neutral possessive (“the minor’s”) in the clause allowing issuance of a certificate of age. The bill does not alter who may receive work permits or certificates of age, the age thresholds for permits, or the legal effect of a certificate of age as a permit to employ a minor.
The practical significance is limited: the bill modernizes statutory language and reduces anachronistic gendered phrasing, but it also triggers small administrative tasks (form and template updates, clerk training) and may be cited as part of broader code-modernization efforts. There is no substantive regulatory or fiscal change embedded in the text.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 2524 replaces a gendered pronoun in one sentence of Section 49114, moving from “his” to “the minor’s” when referring to a minor’s parent, guardian, or person in control presenting evidence of age. The statutory role and function of a certificate of age remain unchanged.
Who It Affects
Primary affected actors are local education agencies and school administrators who issue work permits and certificates of age, and employers who rely on those certificates to verify a minor’s eligibility for employment. Legal publishers and agency rules that quote the statute will need to update text.
Why It Matters
Although the change is stylistic, it fits into a wider push to modernize code language and avoid gendered pronouns. For compliance officers the immediate importance is operational: update forms and guidance to match the revised statutory wording so administrative materials are consistent with the law.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2524 makes one narrowly targeted textual amendment to the Education Code. The bill substitutes “the minor’s” for the former masculine pronoun in the clause that explains when an issuing authority may grant a certificate of age — specifically, when the minor is accompanied by a parent, guardian, or other person in control of the minor and presents the specified evidence of age.
The statute continues to authorize the certificate of age to serve as a permit for minors who are not required by law to attend school and who otherwise must hold a work permit.
Because the amendment does not change eligibility criteria, age ranges, the issuing authority, or the certificate’s legal effect, AB 2524 creates no new substantive duties for school officials or employers. The legal tests and administrative discretion that govern issuance remain governed by the surrounding text and existing Education Code provisions.Operationally, schools and employers will want to align their templates, checklists, and internal guidance with the revised statutory language to avoid confusion or challenges based on wording mismatch.
Legal manuals, student handbooks, and third-party payroll or HR systems that embed statutory language may also need minor updates. The bill does not attach penalties, added reporting, or new compliance processes beyond those modest administrative updates.Finally, while the amendment is minimal, it participates in an interpretive pattern: courts and agencies generally treat such pronoun substitutions as clarifying and non-substantive unless the text change alters an operative term.
Practitioners should note that this bill does not affect precedent about the certificate of age’s function, nor does it change who may lawfully be employed under existing child-labor rules in California.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Section 49114 of the Education Code by replacing the masculine pronoun “his” with the possessive phrase “the minor’s.”, The amendment leaves unchanged the statute’s core rule that an issuing authority may grant a certificate of age when the minor, accompanied by a parent/guardian/other person in control, presents the evidence of age specified in the chapter.
The certificate of age continues to operate as a permit to employ a minor who is not legally required to attend school and who otherwise must hold a work permit.
The change is stylistic and does not modify eligibility criteria, age thresholds, or the legal effect of existing certificates and work permits.
No penalties, new reporting duties, or fiscal appropriations are attached to this amendment in the bill text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Pronoun substitution and certificate-of-age provision remains
This is the single operative edit: the bill changes one word in the sentence describing when an issuing authority may provide a certificate of age. The rest of Section 49114 — including the procedural trigger (minor accompanied by parent/guardian/person in control), the requirement to present evidence of age, and the statement that the certificate serves as a permit to employ certain minors — is left intact. For administrators, the immediate consequence is simply a textual update to statutory citations and any forms that reproduce the statute verbatim.
Administrative updates to forms, guidance, and training
Although not spelled out in separate provisions, the practical follow-on is that schools and county offices of education should review and, where necessary, revise work-permit forms, internal checklists, student handbooks, and guidance documents that quote Section 49114 word-for-word. Human resources and payroll vendors that reference statutory language may also need to update templates to maintain consistency between administrative practice and the statutory text.
No change in substantive legal obligations
By its plain language and placement, the amendment does not create new rights or obligations, nor does it affect other Education Code provisions that govern child labor, compulsory attendance, or the authority of school officials. Courts typically treat a pronoun substitution of this nature as clarifying; therefore, agencies should not expect a shift in enforcement or interpretation absent additional amendments.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Minors (symbolically): The replaced language is gender-neutral, which improves statutory inclusivity and avoids outdated gender assumptions when statutes are quoted in school materials.
- School administrators and counsel: The textual modernization reduces minor points of friction when drafting gender-neutral policies and aligns statutory language with contemporary drafting practices.
- Legal and publishing vendors: Firms that produce statutory compilations, student handbooks, or form templates can cite an updated, inclusive statutory text, reducing the need for style notes or parenthetical corrections.
- Advocacy groups focused on equity and inclusion: The change supports broader efforts to remove gendered language from state statutes and can be cited as part of incremental code modernization work.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local education agencies and school districts: They bear small administrative costs and staff time to update printed and digital materials, internal guidance, and any systems that embed the statute verbatim.
- County offices of education: As issuers or overseers of permit processes in some areas, they will need to ensure consistency across districts and may field questions about the change.
- Form and software vendors: Vendors that provide work-permit forms or HR integrations may need to issue updated templates or patches to maintain textual alignment with the statute.
- Legal publishers and compliance shops: Updating statutory text in databases and published materials requires editorial time, though this is a routine maintenance cost rather than a substantive compliance burden.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between legislative modernization (removing gendered language to reflect inclusive drafting norms) and the practical administrative cost of aligning forms, systems, and guidance to match a text change that has no substantive legal effect; pursuing clarity and inclusiveness imposes modest but real update costs on already-busy school and administrative staff.
The principal implementation question is procedural, not legal: how widely should administrative materials be updated to mirror a stylistic statutory change? Some districts will choose to update every instance where the statute is quoted; others will update only official forms.
That creates a short-term patchwork where different materials may reflect slightly different wording even though the legal effect is identical. Practitioners should weigh the cost of comprehensive updates against the risk that mismatched text could create confusion for parents or employers who expect verbatim statutory citations.
A second tension concerns precedent and interpretation. While courts generally treat pronoun replacements as non-substantive, isolated textual edits can occasionally trigger litigation when parties seek technical advantages from language differences.
That risk is low here because the bill does not alter operative requirements, but affected parties should be aware that any statutory change — however small — can prompt scrutiny if it appears in connection with an adverse administrative decision.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.