The 411 on SB 1100’s Impact on Driver’s License Requirements

As we cruise into 2025, LCW has received a number of questions regarding Senate Bill 1100, the new law that prohibits including a driver’s license requirement in job postings and applications unless the employer reasonably expects that driving is a job function of the position. This blog post addresses some FAQs regarding compliance with SB 1100, including tips for analyzing whether driving is a job function of a position, the law’s relationship to DMV Employer Pull Notices, and reimbursement for transportation.?

Determining Whether Driving is a Job Function of a Position

Effective January 1, 2025, California employers may not include statements about the need for a driver’s license in job advertisements, postings, applications, and similar employment materials, unless: (1) the employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position, and (2) the employer reasonably believes that satisfying those job functions using an “alternative form of transportation” would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer. An “alternative form of transportation” includes, but is not limited to ride-hailing services (e.g., Uber or Lyft), taxi, carpool, biking, and walking. (See Government Code section 12940.)

Employers should review all job descriptions and application materials that include a driver’s license requirement and analyze whether the position meets the exception in SB 1100. Some factors to consider include, but are not limited to:

• Approximately how often does the employee need to travel? If the need to drive arises only rarely or sporadically, it may not be reasonable to expect that driving is a job function of the position. Commuting to and from a worksite is not a job function of a position.
• What is the distance the employee has to travel?
• Does the employee need to transport supplies, such that loading an Uber/Lyft would be impractical?
• How time-sensitive are the employee’s transportation-related duties? I.e., could delays in obtaining alternative transportation interfere with operations or the employee’s ability to fulfill their duties?

DMV Employer Pull Notice (EPN) Program

SB 1100 raises additional questions for employers that have a practice of enrolling all employees in the Department of Motor Vehicles’ EPN Program, which allows employers to receive updates about an employee’s driving record.

Enrollment in the EPN Program is mandatory for those employed for the operation of a vehicle for which they are required to have a Class A license, a Class B license, or certain types of Class C licenses, or if they operate large passenger vehicles. (See Veh. Code, § 1808.1.) Some employers choose to voluntarily enroll all or some employees in the EPN Program, even if the position does not require the employee to possess a special license.

If an employer determines that SB 1100 prohibits it from requiring a driver’s license for a position, the employer should likewise avoid stating in job posting and application materials that enrollment in the EPN program is required. That said, SB 1100 does not preclude the employer from providing a prospective employee or new hire with DMV EPN program forms to fill out if they do possess a driver’s license. Employers who choose to provide the forms to applicants to positions that do not meet the SB 1100 exception should clearly communicate that the forms do not amount to a driver’s license requirement.

Reimbursement for Alternative Forms of Transportation

The exception to SB 1100 directs employers to consider whether alternative methods of transportation (e.g., Uber/Lyft or taxi) are “comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.” So what exactly is the cost?

While Labor Code section 2802 generally requires employers to reimburse costs incurred in the course and scope of employment, including transportation costs, some case law suggests that section 2802 may not apply to public agencies and the issue will likely be decided in the appellate courts soon. Nonetheless, it is prudent to take into account the requirements of section 2802 in the meantime—and also for an agency to keep in mind any reimbursement policy it has.

If an employee uses alternative methods of transportation in connection with their job duties—for example, if they take an Uber to travel from their primary worksite to a different location to perform a work-related task during the workday—the employer should reimburse the employee for the cost of the Uber. Employers can factor in potential reimbursement costs when they assess whether a position meets the exception under SB 1100. We note that commuting to and from the employee’s primary workplace is not compensable and does not require reimbursement (unless the employer has a policy to the contrary).

For specific question about how SB 1100 applies to particular positions or circumstances, consult with experienced employment counsel.

California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog

www.lcwlegal.com