AB 845 requires departments and boards within California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to collaborate and forward complaints received from agricultural employees to the agency best suited to investigate and process them. The requirement is triggered when any LWDA entity intakes a complaint and is conditional on a legislative appropriation to fund implementation.
The bill also instructs the transmitting entity to protect complainant identity and personal information “to the extent prohibited by law” unless the complainant consents. It defines who counts as an agricultural employee by reference to specific Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders and lists which agencies qualify as “appropriate entities,” creating a narrow statutory framework for referrals and confidentiality during interagency complaint routing.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires LWDA departments and boards that receive a complaint from an agricultural employee to work together and use "reasonable efforts" to forward that complaint to whichever agency within the list of appropriate entities can process and investigate it. The duty to transmit and protect identity is conditioned on an appropriation by the Legislature.
Who It Affects
Directly affects LWDA components (for example, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and Employment Development Department), their intake staff, privacy/compliance officers, and the agricultural employees who file complaints.
Why It Matters
This standardizes cross-agency routing of farmworker complaints—closing an operational gap where complaints can sit with the wrong unit—and creates a statutory privacy guardrail for complainant identity during transfers. Agencies will need new protocols, secure transmission methods, and training to comply.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 845 creates a statutory duty for any department, division, or board within California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency that receives a complaint from an agricultural employee to collaborate with other LWDA entities and make reasonable efforts to forward the complaint to the appropriate agency for investigation and processing. The duty is not self-executing: the Legislature must appropriate funds for this obligation to take effect.
That makes implementation contingent on budget action.
When an intake unit forwards a complaint, the transmitting entity must avoid disclosing the complainant’s identity and personal information unless disclosure is allowed by law or the complainant gives written consent. The bill anchors confidentiality to existing legal limits rather than creating a new absolute privilege, so how much information moves will depend on existing statutes and regulations governing disclosure.AB 845 defines the covered worker population by importing definitions from specific Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders: it covers persons employed in agricultural occupations, in farm-based product preparation industries, and in industries handling postharvest products.
It also identifies a nonexclusive list of “appropriate entities” (including ALRB, DIR, DLSE, DOSH, and EDD) to clarify likely referral destinations but does not restrict referrals to only those bodies.Practically, the bill compels agencies to adopt operational measures: intake screening rules to identify agricultural-employee complaints, a referral matrix that maps issues to investigative units, confidentiality protocols aligned with Section 6309(c) and other laws, and secure channels for transmission. The statute is light on procedural detail—it does not set timelines, define penalties for failure to transmit, or prescribe a technical standard for secure data transfer—leaving those design choices to agencies during implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statutory duty to collaborate and forward complaints only takes effect if the Legislature provides a specific appropriation for implementation.
The transmitting entity must not disclose a complainant’s identity or personal information “to the extent prohibited by law” without the complainant’s consent, rather than creating an absolute non‑disclosure rule.
The bill defines “agricultural employee” by cross-reference to Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders No. 14 (agricultural occupations), No. 13 (on‑farm product preparation), and No. 8 (postharvest handling).
The statute lists several “appropriate entities” (including the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and Employment Development Department) but labels that list as nonexclusive.
The phrase “reasonable efforts” is tied to each entity’s confidentiality requirements and explicitly references subdivision (c) of Labor Code Section 6309, creating a legal hinge between information-sharing duties and existing privacy rules.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory collaboration and forwarding of complaints (conditional on funding)
This subsection creates the core operational requirement: when any LWDA entity intakes a complaint from an agricultural employee, that entity must collaborate with other appropriate LWDA entities and make reasonable efforts to transmit the complaint to the agency best able to process and investigate it. Because the duty is expressly conditioned on an appropriation, agencies do not have to begin implementing protocols until funding is allocated. The provision will require intake staff to identify agricultural-employee complaints and to follow referral procedures, increasing coordination work across units that historically have operated separately.
Limits on disclosure of complainant identity during transmission
This clause obliges the transmitting entity not to disclose the complainant’s identity and personal information when forwarding a complaint, except as allowed by law or with the complainant’s consent. It ties confidentiality obligations to existing statutory limits rather than creating new absolute protections, meaning agencies must reconcile their disclosure rules, subpoena obligations, and statutorily required reporting with the duty to protect identity during referrals.
Who counts as an agricultural employee
The bill adopts three specific IW C wage‑order-based definitions to delineate covered workers: those in agricultural occupations (Wage Order No. 14), those preparing agricultural products on the farm (Wage Order No. 13), and those handling products after harvest (Wage Order No. 8). Using those wage orders narrows the statute to established categories but also imports any ambiguities or contested interpretations from the wage orders into this referral duty.
Who is an appropriate entity
This subsection lists sample agencies that should receive routed complaints—ALRB, DIR, DLSE, DOSH, and EDD—but uses inclusive language (“includes, but is not limited to”), leaving room for other state bodies to be designated as appropriate. That flexibility helps capture cross‑cutting claims (for example, unemployment or workplace safety issues) but creates potential jurisdictional uncertainty about who ultimately owns a complaint.
Meaning of “reasonable efforts” and confidentiality nexus
The bill defines “reasonable efforts” by reference to each entity’s confidentiality obligations and specifically calls out subdivision (c) of Labor Code Section 6309 as a baseline. Practically, that anchors the standard to existing privacy rules and implies that agencies will need to interpret “reasonable efforts” in light of their statutory disclosure duties, potentially producing differing thresholds of information sharing across entities.
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
- Agricultural employees who file complaints — they are more likely to have their complaint routed to the agency equipped to investigate their specific claim rather than get stuck at an intake unit that lacks jurisdiction or expertise.
- Worker centers, legal aid providers, and clinics that assist farmworkers — streamlined referrals reduce case attrition and make it easier to track where a complaint landed, improving client service and case outcomes.
- LWDA enforcement units (DLSE, DOSH, ALRB, etc.) — clearer routing should increase the quality and relevance of incoming case dockets, reducing time wasted triaging misdirected complaints and enabling faster investigative starts.
- State workforce programs (EDD) — the explicit inclusion of EDD in the statutory list makes it easier to surface claims that implicate benefit eligibility or employer reporting, improving cross-program coordination.
Who Bears the Cost
- LWDA agencies and boards — they will need to build intake triage rules, referral matrices, secure transmission methods, staff training, and case‑management interfaces, creating operational and IT costs not covered by the statute itself.
- Privacy and compliance teams within agencies — these units must reconcile differing legal disclosure obligations and draft formal protocols to honor the bill’s confidentiality constraint while complying with subpoenas, public‑records law, and mandated reporting.
- The Legislature/state budget — the statute is expressly conditional on an appropriation, so the cost of implementation falls to the state budget process and competes with other priorities.
- Employers, particularly smaller agricultural employers — faster or better‑routed complaints can accelerate investigations and enforcement actions, increasing the likelihood and speed of employer exposure to liability or remedial orders.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma AB 845 tries to solve is straightforward: improving cross‑agency coordination to get agricultural-worker complaints to the right investigator as quickly as possible versus protecting complainant privacy and legal obligations that limit information sharing; enhancing one can directly undermine the other, and the bill leaves agencies to strike that balance in practice.
The bill resolves an operational gap—misrouted agricultural complaints—by imposing a duty to forward and protect complaints, but it leaves many implementation choices unresolved. It conditions the duty on an appropriation, so practical effects depend entirely on budget decisions; without funding, the law can exist on paper without changing intake practices.
The statute mandates "reasonable efforts" and ties confidentiality to existing law (including Labor Code Section 6309(c)), but it does not define a transmission timeline, a secure transmission standard, or consequences for failing to forward a complaint. Agencies will therefore need to negotiate procedural memoranda or regulations to operationalize the duty.
Another tension arises from coupling information‑sharing with privacy constraints. Agencies will have to interpret how far they can go in sharing facts necessary for triage while still honoring ‘‘do not disclose’’ directives tied to other statutes (e.g., identity protections for certain complainants).
That reconciliation could produce uneven practices across agencies, create delays while counsel weighs disclosure risks, or chill complaints if intake staff err on the side of nondisclosure. Finally, by referencing specific wage orders to define covered workers, the bill imports existing definitional disputes and may leave borderline workers—seasonal, packing‑house, or mixed‑job employees—in uncertainty about whether the referral duty applies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.