AB 2714 makes a single editorial change to Section 976 of the California Unemployment Insurance Code: it updates archaic wording in the sentence that prohibits employers from deducting their required contributions to the Unemployment Fund. The bill is labeled in its digest as a nonsubstantive amendment and does not alter the substance of employer payment obligations or the underlying allocation of contributions.
The practical effect is minimal: the bill modernizes statutory language to reflect gender-neutral and clearer phrasing and avoids the continued use of outdated pronouns in the code. Agencies, employers, and payroll systems do not receive new duties, nor does the bill create new funding or enforcement mechanisms.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Section 976 to update the statute’s phrasing that forbids employers from deducting required Unemployment Fund contributions from wages, replacing the older pronoun/wording with contemporary, gender-neutral language. It does not alter which employers must pay or how contributions are calculated.
Who It Affects
Primary touchpoints are legal drafters, statutory publishers, the Employment Development Department (EDD), and employers’ compliance and payroll teams who maintain policy manuals and statutory references. Practitioners who rely on statutory text for litigation or compliance will see the updated wording in the code.
Why It Matters
Although the change is editorial, it continues California’s project of modernizing statutory language and reducing archaic phrasing that can cause confusion. For most stakeholders the impact is administrative (updating references); for litigators and judges, the amendment slightly narrows opportunities to argue that prior wording created ambiguity about persons covered by the provision.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 976 currently says employer contributions ‘shall not be deducted in whole or in part from the wages of individuals in his employ.’ AB 2714 edits that closing phrase to use up-to-date, gender-neutral wording referring to the employer’s employees. The core legal rule — that employers, except as otherwise defined, must pay contributions into the Unemployment Fund and may not deduct those contributions from employees’ wages — remains exactly as before.
Because the bill is framed as nonsubstantive, it leaves the statute’s operative obligations, deadlines, exemptions and enforcement framework untouched. The Employment Development Department keeps the same authority to collect contributions; businesses keep the same payment responsibilities.
There are no new reporting, withholding, or penalty elements added by this text change.On implementation, the change is administrative: state code publishers, the EDD’s published regulations and guidance, and employer compliance materials will need to reflect the new phrasing. Those updates are routine.
The amendment also reduces the minor interpretive friction that arises when courts analyze statutes drafted in outdated or inconsistent pronouns—though the change is unlikely to generate new judicial precedents on the substance of employer obligations.Finally, this bill fits a broader drafting pattern. Legislatures periodically enact discrete, nonpolicy edits to make the statutory code more consistent and inclusive.
Those edits simplify statutory language without changing underlying policy choices made elsewhere in the code.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2714 amends only Section 976 of the Unemployment Insurance Code; no other sections are changed.
The digest explicitly labels the change as nonsubstantive, indicating the Legislature views it as editorial rather than policy-making.
The bill does not add new duties, enforcement mechanisms, or funding; Appropriation: NO and Fiscal Committee: NO in the digest.
Administrative action required is limited to updating published code text, internal compliance manuals, and online statutory databases — the substantive duty to pay employer contributions is unchanged.
Because the bill only modernizes language, it is unlikely to affect employer liability, penalty exposure, or EDD collection practice; any legal effects would arise only if courts treated the revision as indicative of legislative intent.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Modernize closing phrase that prohibits deduction of employer contributions
This is the operative text change: the statute’s prohibition on employers deducting contributions from employees’ wages receives updated phrasing. Practically, the provision continues to bar deducting required Unemployment Fund contributions from employees’ pay; the amendment replaces antiquated pronoun usage with contemporary language to reflect clarity and inclusiveness. For compliance officers, the rule to prohibit deduction remains intact — payroll practice does not change.
Nonsubstantive designation and fiscal posture
The bill’s digest characterizes the amendment as nonsubstantive and notes no appropriation or fiscal committee referral. That matters because administrative agencies and courts typically treat such edits as editorial: they do not trigger rulemaking, budgeting, or new enforcement activity. The absence of fiscal impact language signals the Legislature did not intend to impose new costs or duties.
Who updates the text and where it appears
The technical change requires updates in official code publications, the EDD’s regulatory and guidance materials, and any digital statute repositories maintained by the state. Private-sector actors with compliance manuals, employee handbooks, or automated payroll systems should also update citations and quoted statutory language to match the revised text, although the substantive payroll calculation and withholding rules remain unchanged.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment 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
- Employees and job applicants — benefit symbolically and practically from gender-neutral statutory language that avoids outdated phrasing, which can reduce perception of bias and marginal confusion in personnel policies.
- Legal drafters and codifiers — benefit from more consistent, modern text that simplifies future drafting and reduces the need for ancillary edits when cross-referencing the code.
- Courts and litigators — gain a slightly clearer textual baseline; removing archaic pronouns marginally reduces opportunities to litigate over whether singular or plural subjects were intended, narrowing a technical avenue for semantic disputes.
Who Bears the Cost
- State code publishers and the Employment Development Department — must update published statutes, guidance documents, and online resources; costs are routine publishing and editing expenses.
- Employers’ compliance and payroll teams — face minor administrative costs to update internal documents, policy manuals, and any automated systems that embed statutory language or produce employee-facing notices.
- Legal and HR departments — will need to revise template language and internal citations; costs are administrative and typically absorbed as part of standard maintenance rather than a substantive compliance burden.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between modernizing statutory language for clarity and inclusivity and preserving absolute textual continuity for legal certainty: an edit that improves readability can nonetheless create marginal interpretive uncertainty, forcing courts or practitioners to decide whether a draftsmanship fix also signals a shift in legislative intent.
Labeling the amendment as nonsubstantive reduces the likelihood that courts will treat the change as altering legislative intent, but it does not eliminate the possibility that a litigant will point to the revision in a close interpretive case. A single-word or pronoun edit can occasionally shift how a judge reads statute grammar, particularly where number (singular vs. plural) or antecedent clarity matters.
That creates a low-probability interpretive risk: the change is intended to be editorial, yet courts could consider the revision alongside legislative history in a future dispute.
There is also an administrative trade-off. While the direct costs are small, cumulative editorial amendments across many bills impose a continuous maintenance burden on state publishers, agencies, and private compliance teams.
Finally, the bill reflects a normative choice to prioritize inclusive language; reasonable readers may debate whether such editorial changes should be consolidated into omnibus code-revision bills rather than processed as stand-alone statutory edits, to reduce legislative clutter and cumulative administrative updating tasks.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.