The civic record
Read. Follow. Verify.California Bill AB 1961 authorizes employers to seek workplace violence restraining orders for entire locations without naming individual employees
Record date · September 3, 2026
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
What This Bill Would Do
Assembly Bill 1961 allows an employer to seek a on behalf of all employees at a specific workplace or work location without needing to name individual employees as protected parties. The measure directs the to update or modify relevant court forms by January 1, 2028. It also includes provisions to coordinate statutory changes with other pending bills, AB 2179 and AB 1753.
Employers gain the legal option to secure workplace-wide safety protections for staff at a specific location without filing individual names, while courts receive a January 1, 2028 deadline to revise official restraining order forms.
- The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts, tasked with improving the administration of justice. context
Who It Would Affect
Groups the bill's text would affect if enacted, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.
employers
Employers gain the authority to seek location-wide workplace violence restraining orders without naming individual employees.
employees
Employees may be included under location-wide workplace violence restraining orders sought by their employer without being individually named.
Judicial Council
The Judicial Council must adopt or modify specific court forms on or before January 1, 2028.
Key Facts
You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an employer have to name every employee when filing a restraining order under this bill?
What is the Judicial Council required to do under this legislation?
What else do you want to know?
News Coverage
Bias ratings based on AllSides / Media Bias/Fact Check
Follow the record
Votes, people, money & the original sourceWhere This Stands
Currently filed. The next step in the legislative lifecycle is Committee.
Version history & redline
4 versions on fileOfficial version history is partial: 4 linked texts are unavailable or incomplete. Source links remain available below.
The text diff for this stage has not been computed yet.
pdf extract failed: Invalid PDF structure.
Lobbying Activity
No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.
Full breakdown
Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.
Discoveries
Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.
Statutory Coordination with AB 2179 and AB 1753
The bill contains conditional enactment clauses linking its amendments to Section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure with two other assembly bills.
Connected Entities
Sources
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance60How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy25Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment5Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz20Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools