AB 394 authorizes an employer or the employee’s collective bargaining representative to petition a court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an order after hearing on behalf of an employee who has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence at the workplace. The petition may, at the court’s discretion, cover multiple named employees at the same workplace and, when appropriate, employees at other employer worksites.
The bill expressly includes volunteers and independent contractors in the definition of “employee” and expands “employer” to cover public transit operators and various public entities.
The statute sets expedited timelines and evidentiary standards for TROs, creates rules for service and law enforcement verification (including CLETS transmission), requires firearm relinquishment by restrained persons, provides mandatory Judicial Council forms and fee waivers for petitions and subpoenas, and permits orders after hearing with durations up to three years and renewals without a new showing of harm. For employers, unions, courts, and law enforcement, the bill is a practical workplace-safety tool; for respondents it introduces civil restraints with criminal penalties for firearm possession and contempt for intentional violations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill allows an employer or collective bargaining representative to file for TROs and orders after hearing on behalf of an employee who was harassed, assaulted, or credibly threatened at work, with TROs decided the same day and limited to 21 (or 25) days before a hearing. After a hearing the court may issue orders lasting up to three years and may renew them without requiring new evidence of misconduct.
Who It Affects
Public and private employers (explicitly including public transit operators), collective bargaining representatives, employees (including volunteers and independent contractors), restrained respondents, state and local law enforcement agencies, and the Judicial Council.
Why It Matters
AB 394 creates a third‑party petition mechanism that lets employers and unions seek workplace‑wide protection quickly while tying the remedy to criminal‑style enforcement (firearm surrender, CLETS entries) and fee waivers — shifting some workplace‑safety decisions into civil‑protective‑order processes and changing operational burdens for courts and police.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill gives employers and collective bargaining representatives a statutory path to ask courts for civil protective orders when an employee faces harassment, unlawful violence, or credible threats tied to the workplace. A petitioner can pursue a TRO ex parte or with notice, and the statute distinguishes between unlawful violence (where “reasonable proof” is sufficient for an emergency TRO) and harassment (which requires clear and convincing evidence for the TRO).
Before filing, the petitioner must give the affected employee an opportunity to decline being named; the employee’s choice not to be named does not stop a petitioner from seeking protection for other workers.
TROs are fast: a petition for an ex parte TRO must be granted or denied the same day it’s submitted (or the next business day if filed late), and any TRO lasts no more than 21 days (or 25 days if the court extends for good cause) before a formal hearing. If no temporary orders are requested, the hearing schedule is the same — within 21 days, or 25 with good cause.
At the hearing the judge receives relevant testimony and may inquire into employment decisions if the respondent still works for the employer; the court must find misconduct by clear and convincing evidence to issue a protective order after hearing.Orders after hearing can run up to three years and are renewable for additional three‑year periods. Notably, the statute allows renewal without proof of new misconduct during the prior term, so a protected party or petitioner can request renewal within three months before expiration.
The bill also prescribes practical service and enforcement rules that accommodate on‑scene actions by law enforcement: verbal notification by an officer can constitute service, courts must transmit orders or proofs of service to law enforcement or enter them into CLETS within one business day, and officers are directed to attempt verification and enforce orders at incident scenes. Finally, the statute imposes firearm surrender and bars possession while an order is in effect, directs the Judicial Council to adopt mandatory forms, and waives filing and process fees for qualifying petitions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
An employer or the employee’s collective bargaining representative may petition for a TRO and an order after hearing on behalf of an employee and, at the court’s discretion, additional employees at the same or other worksites.
Different standards apply for emergency TROs: a petitioner can show reasonable proof of unlawful violence or must show clear and convincing evidence that harassment occurred and served no legitimate purpose.
TROs must be granted or denied the same day they are filed (or next business day if late); a TRO lasts up to 21 days (25 if extended for good cause) and a hearing must occur within that same 21/25‑day window.
Orders after hearing may last up to three years and may be renewed for subsequent three‑year terms without demonstrating any new harassment, unlawful violence, or threats since the original order.
The statute requires rapid transmission of orders to law enforcement (including CLETS entry or delivery to local agencies), allows verbal officer notice to constitute service, mandates firearm relinquishment by restrained persons, and eliminates filing and subpoena fees for qualifying petitions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Who may petition and on whose behalf
Subdivision (a) authorizes employers and collective bargaining representatives to bring petitions on behalf of individual employees and, with court approval, additional employees at the same workplace or other employer worksites. The provision conditionally limits a union representative’s standing to those who actually serve as the employee’s bargaining representative in workplace labor matters, tying standing to an existing representation relationship rather than a broader advocacy role.
Definitions that control scope
Subdivision (b) defines key terms: "course of conduct," "credible threat of violence," "harassment," and expands "employee" to include volunteers and independent contractors and "employer" to include public entities and transit operators. Those definitions determine the statute’s reach — for example, including contractors means gig or contracted transit workers can be subjects or protected persons, and the stalking and assault cross‑references anchor the civil route to existing criminal prohibitions.
Protections for speech and labor activity
Subdivision (c) draws explicit lines: courts cannot issue orders that prohibit constitutionally protected speech, activity protected by the NLRA, or other statutory protections. That carve‑out is a legal shield for union activity and expressive conduct, but it also creates a fact‑intensive gate the court must parse when a petition implicates workplace protest, picketing, or concerted labor speech.
Evidentiary standards, TRO timelines, and order duration
These interconnected provisions set the mechanics: for an emergency TRO a petitioner must file a declaration showing either reasonable proof of unlawful violence or clear and convincing evidence of harassment and irreparable harm; TROs are decided the same day, last up to 21 days (25 with extension), and hearings follow within that timeframe. Orders after hearing require clear and convincing findings and may last up to three years; the statute also allows renewal for three years without a new showing of misconduct if filed within a three‑month window before expiration.
Service, continuances, and conversion rules
These sections spell out service requirements and default enforcement mechanics: respondents must be personally served copies at least five days before hearing (subject to judicial shortening), the respondent gets one automatic continuance, and verbal notice by a law enforcement officer at the scene can constitute service for enforcement purposes. Where a respondent appears at a hearing, additional proof of service is unnecessary. The statute also authorizes mail service if the hearing‑issued order merely extends duration without substantive change.
Law enforcement transmission and CLETS procedures
Subdivision (s) requires courts to deliver orders and any proofs of service to the Department of Justice or local law enforcement the same business day (either by sending physical copies to agencies authorized to enter CLETS or by direct CLETS entry where DOJ approves). It instructs law enforcement to make order status available to responding officers and allows on‑scene service and verification procedures, changing how protective orders reach and are enforced by police.
Firearms, penalties, forms, fees, and operation date
These clauses impose firearm surrender (mirroring Section 527.9 procedures), attach criminal penalties for possessing firearms while restrained, and make intentional disobedience punishable under Penal Code contempt provisions. The Judicial Council must adopt mandatory petition and order forms (though nonconforming forms do not automatically invalidate an order), the statute waives filing and subpoena fees for qualifying petitions and removes some service fees, and the section becomes operative January 1, 2025.
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 (including volunteers and independent contractors) who face workplace threats — they gain expedited access to civil protective relief named and enforced at the workplace, and can be protected without personally filing a petition.
- Employers and collective bargaining representatives — the bill gives them a centralized legal tool to seek workplace‑wide relief quickly, which can reduce immediate safety risks and potentially limit employer liability tied to foreseeable workplace violence.
- Public transit operators and their workers — the explicit inclusion of public transit operators and public entities ensures transit agencies and contracting vendors can use the statute to address threats that occur in transit settings, a setting with unique safety risks and operational consequences.
- Law enforcement officers responding to incidents — CLETS entries, on‑scene verification rules, and directives to serve orders streamline officers’ ability to know and enforce existing orders at the scene.
- Courts and compliance officers — mandatory forms and a standardized process simplify filings and make case management for workplace protective orders more predictable.
Who Bears the Cost
- Respondents subject to orders — civil restraint can include distance, contact, and firearms prohibitions, and criminal penalties attach to firearm possession and intentional disobedience, imposing significant liberty and collateral consequences.
- Employers and unions that initiate petitions — they must make factual showings, manage employee consent preferences, and may incur administrative burdens coordinating service, law‑enforcement requests, and potential employment discipline evidence production.
- State and local law enforcement — officers must verify orders on scene, may serve orders verbally, and local agencies must enter or receive orders into CLETS promptly, increasing operational and data‑entry workload.
- Trial courts and clerks — the statute requires same‑day TRO decisions, rapid transmission to law enforcement, mandatory forms, and fee exemptions that shift administrative burdens onto court staff without a designated funding stream.
- Protected employees who decline to be named — while allowed to opt out of being named, their anonymity may complicate enforcement and evidence presentation and can leave ambiguity about who exactly the order protects.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between speed and breadth of protection for workplace safety — enabling employers and unions to secure swift, workplace‑wide civil restraints (including firearm removal and multiemployee orders) — and the need to safeguard due process, free speech, and labor‑protected activity: the very mechanisms that make orders effective (fast hearings, CLETS entries, renewals without new proof) also heighten the risk of overreach and prolonged deprivation of liberty without fresh evidentiary findings.
AB 394 packs several durable tools into the civil protective‑order framework, but each creates practical trade‑offs. First, expedited relief requires the courts to resolve TRO requests the same day they’re filed; that demands judicial resources, trained staff, and reliable evidence gathering at short notice.
The statute’s dual standard — reasonable proof for unlawful violence versus clear and convincing proof for harassment — gives courts latitude but also invites contested fact disputes early in the process, increasing the likelihood of emergency hearings that require careful fact‑finding under time pressure.
Second, the law ties civil protective orders to criminal‑style consequences (firearm surrender and Penal Code enforcement), and it permits renewals for three‑year terms without a fresh showing of harm. That combination increases the protective value for employees but raises the risk that a one‑time finding could produce prolonged, substantial limitations on a respondent’s liberty and employment prospects.
Implementation also hinges on administrative coordination: CLETS entries, on‑scene verbal service, and same‑day transmissions require consistent procedures and technological capacity across courts and police agencies; gaps there could undermine enforceability or produce unequal protection across jurisdictions.
Finally, the statute protects constitutionally and NLRA‑protected activity on its face, but the line between protected labor speech and harassing or threatening behavior is fact‑intensive. Courts will need to police that boundary in contested cases, creating litigation over where safety ends and protected conduct begins — particularly in workplaces with active labor disputes, protests, or intense public‑facing operations like transit.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.