Senate committee hears bill to clarify use of temporary restraining orders for transit workers

Assemblymember Wilson on Tuesday presented AB 394 to the California State Senate Judiciary Committee, asking lawmakers to accept committee amendments that narrow and clarify how courts may use workplace violence temporary restraining orders (TROs) in transit settings.

The bill, Wilson said, clarifies that existing enhanced penalties for battery apply to transit employees beyond operators and makes explicit that public transit employers and their unions may petition for workplace violence TROs. Wilson and witnesses said judges would retain discretion to tailor TROs to the facts of each case, including systemwide limitations and hardship to respondents.

The bill’s supporters said the measure is largely declaratory — restating or clarifying existing law where courts or jurisdictions have expressed uncertainty. Bill Churchill, general manager of County Connection, told the committee that County Connection sought and received TROs against seven individuals over the past five years; he said those cases represented fewer than one‑hundredth of 1 percent of riders but accounted for a large share of violent disruptions to service and that TROs had materially reduced repeated violent incidents.

Union and transit associations — including the California Conference of the ATU, California Teamsters, the California Transit Association, several transit agencies and ATU Local 256 — testified in support and asked the committee for an aye vote. Supporters described incidents of repeat assault (one witness recounted a driver assaulted with a modified umbrella who returned to the bus the next day) and said a clear statutory signal would help courts and local jurisdictions apply enhanced penalties and protections consistently.

The committee recorded one principal witness in opposition (ACLU of California Action), and committee members discussed the committee amendments and scope. Senator Laird and other senators indicated they viewed the measure as a committee clarification; the author said the committee amendments were intended to prevent overly broad application, especially as to systemwide TROs. No formal motion or final vote on AB 394 appeared in the transcript excerpt provided.

Supporters said the bill would preserve judicial discretion and would not create mandatory systemwide bans; opponents noted civil‑liberties and due‑process issues and asked that scope and safeguards be clarified. The author said he would accept committee amendments and work with colleagues prior to further action.

At the time the transcript ends, the bill had completed testimony and closing remarks; committee members said they expected a motion and a vote at the appropriate time but no vote result is recorded in the provided excerpt.