BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2900| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 2900 Author: Laird (D) Amended: 4/1/04 in Assembly Vote: 21 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-2, 6/22/04 AYES: Escutia, Cedillo, Kuehl, Sher NOES: Morrow, Ackerman NO VOTE RECORDED: Ducheny SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-4, 8/4/04 AYES: Alpert, Bowen, Escutia, Karnette, Machado, Murray, Speier NOES: Battin, Aanestad, Ashburn, Poochigian NO VOTE RECORDED: Burton, Johnson ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-32, 5/17/04 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Employment discrimination SOURCE : Equality California DIGEST : This bill changes employment antidiscrimination provisions in various codes to conform with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and to prohibit discrimination on the same bases as those found in FEHA. ANALYSIS : Existing law, scattered among several codes, prohibit discrimination in employment on different bases, such as race, color, sex, religion and marital status. CONTINUED AB 2900 Page 2 Existing law, FEHA, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation. This bill incorporates, in various code provisions that prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of specified characteristics, a reference to the bases enumerated in FEHA, as those bases may be defined under that act. This bill requires the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) to decertify a labor organization based on a finding by the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing that the organization discriminated on the basis of membership in the protected classes enumerated in FEHA. Section 1156.3 of the Labor Code requires the ALRB to decertify a labor organization on the basis of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission finding that the labor organization engaged in discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or any other arbitrary or invidious classification in violation of Title 42 of the United States Code during the labor organization's present certification. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee analysis, this bill is consistent with California's longstanding policy of protecting its workers, even more so than federal laws and regulations. Because Section 12940's list of protected classes is more expansive in scope and less restrictive in qualifiers than federal law, allowing the ALRB to decertify a labor organization that discriminates on the basis of membership in one of California's list of protected classes makes sense. This bill applies the non-discrimination policy to the protected classes enumerated in FEHA, relating to service in the California State Military Reserve in positions that do not require federal recognition. AB 2889 codifies the court's holding in Holmes v. California National Guard, 90 Cal.App.4th, 297 Holmes involved the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the AB 2900 Page 3 United States Military, that requires self-acknowledged homosexuals to separate from federal military service. Holmes was an officer in the California State Military Reserve who was placed into service in the United States Army National Guard of California. When he acknowledged his homosexuality, his federal recognition was withdrawn (he was given an honorable discharge). The state statute governing state military reserve officers commissioned into federal service allows them to return to former reserve status and to remain as a state commissioned officer of the California State Military Reserve. The court held that the state effectively discriminated against Holmes when it did not allow Holmes to return to active duty in the California State Military Reserve in a position that did not require federal recognition. Section 130 of the Military and Veterans Code prohibits segregation of the state militia or discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, ancestry, or color. This bill cross-references this section to Section 12940 of the Government Code (FEHA) instead. Section 130 also declares the state policy that there be equality of treatment and opportunity to all members of the state militia without regard to race, national origin, ancestry or color. Again, this bill cross-references Section 12940 to include all of the other protected classes under this policy. Additionally, Section 130 requires the Governor to put this policy into effect in the militia, with due regard to the powers of the federal government that may be exercised over all the militia of the state. This bill qualifies this statement to refer to the federal government's powers over the militia with regards to positions requiring federal recognition. This change preserves the rights of California military personnel when they are not serving in the United States military as part of the National Guard, and tie those rights to the protections provided by FEHA. AB 2889 (Laird) incorporates language in the court's decision in Holmes, which refers to the federal government's power over the state's rules with regards to the military as being AB 2900 Page 4 limited to those positions that require federal recognition. This bill makes other conforming changes to those provisions. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis, costs to various state agencies for enforcement of the expanded provisions is unknown, but likely less than $150,000 annually. Costs to local law enforcement agencies resulting from the expansion of a misdemeanor would be minor and offset by fine revenues. SUPPORT : (Verified 8/5/04) Equality California (source) Office of the State Attorney General American Civil Liberties Union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO Anti-Defamation League California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council California Labor Federation California National Organization for Women California State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Congress of California Seniors Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission of the City and County of Sacramento Lambda Letters Project The Legal Aid Society Metropolitan Community Church, Los Angeles Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund National Center for Lesbian Rights Our Family Coalition Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Ventura County Pride at Work, Southern California Protection and Advocacy, Inc. San Francisco Aids Foundation The San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center AB 2900 Page 5 Stonewall Democratic Club of Greater Sacramento Transgender Law Center OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/5/04) Associated Builders and Contractors of California Capitol Resource Institute Responsible Citizens, Inc. Traditional Values Coalition ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author contends that this bill is needed "[i]n order to remedy the lack of protection for many Californians and the confusion that exists for implementation and compliance" with the varied anti-discrimination-in-employment laws scattered in the codes. In support of this bill, the California State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) writes, "[a]s the nation's oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP [supports] this measure to create a consistent non-discrimination statutory scheme that also would give California the most comprehensive civil rights protections of any state in the country for workers and employers." Another supporter, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) states, "[w]e firmly believe that the citizens of California, including protected classes, would benefit greatly from the removal of discrepancies among protected classes in the statutes. Creating uniformity in the definition of protected classes will remove any deficiencies in protection as well as any current confusion in the application and compliance of the relevant statutes." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The opponents, however, believe that, "[w]hile consistency in the law is usually beneficial, we believe existing law is harmful and that this bill, therefore, makes a bad situation even worse." Responsible Citizens, Inc., letter dated June 17, 2004. Another opponent contends that passage of this bill forces state agencies not only "to keep records showing they are hiring certain percentages of sexual and other minorities, AB 2900 Page 6 but will force them to actively seek out sexual and other minorities for recruitment." Finally, the Associated Builders and Contractors of California argues that the application of FEHA to all of those employment-related statutes "make the construction industry vulnerable to predatory lawsuits resulting from SB 796 (Dunn, 2003)." SB 796 allows employees to bring civil action to collect penalties from employers in violation of Labor Code provisions, and allows attorneys' fees and costs if the prosecution is successful. ASSEMBLY FLOOR : AYES: Berg, Bermudez, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Corbett, Correa, Diaz, Dutra, Dymally, Firebaugh, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Jerome Horton, Jackson, Kehoe, Koretz, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal, Matthews, Montanez, Mullin, Nakano, Nation, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Parra, Pavley, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Salinas, Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wesson, Wiggins, Wolk, Yee, Nunez NOES: Aghazarian, Bates, Benoit, Bogh, Campbell, Cogdill, Cox, Daucher, Dutton, Garcia, Harman, Haynes, Shirley Horton, Houston, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Maddox, Maldonado, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Pacheco, Plescia, Richman, Runner, Samuelian, Spitzer, Strickland, Wyland DLW:mel 8/9/04 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****