BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1400|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1400
Author: Laird (D), et al
Amended: 6/17/05 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-2, 6/28/05
AYES: Dunn, Cedillo, Figueroa, Kuehl
NOES: Morrow, Ackerman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Escutia
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 44-29, 4/14/05 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Unruh Civil Rights Act: marital status and
sexual orientation
SOURCE : Equality California
DIGEST : The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Act) provides that
all persons, regardless of their sex, race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical
condition are entitled to the full and equal
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and
services in all business establishments of every kind.
This bill clarifies that marital status and sexual
orientation are among the characteristics that are
protected against discrimination by business establishments
under the Act. This bill also imports into the Act
definitions of the terms "disability," "religion," "sex,"
and "sexual orientation" from the Fair Employment and
Housing Act, and includes, in enumerating the above
CONTINUED
AB 1400
Page
2
characteristics, the perception of those characteristics
and association with a person who has or is perceived to
have those characteristics as being within the protected
categories. These definitions will be integrated into
other related provisions of the Act. This bill contains
legislative findings and declarations regarding the Act and
the courts' consistent interpretation that the categories
enumerated in the Act are illustrative rather than
restrictive, and further declares the Legislature's intent
that the enumerated bases in the Act continue to be
construed as illustrative rather than restrictive. This
bill further declares that it does not intend to affect the
California Supreme Court's holding in Marina Point, Ltd. v.
Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act,
provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this
state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex,
race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
disability, or medical condition are entitled to full and
equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges,
or services in all business establishments of every kind
whatsoever. [Section 51 of the Civil Code]
Existing law extends the prohibition against discrimination
as provided in the Act to a person who is perceived to have
one or more of the characteristics enumerated in the Act or
because the person is associated with a person who has or
is perceived to have any of those characteristics.
Existing case law prohibits other forms of arbitrary
discrimination, including specifically sexual orientation
discrimination, in business establishments under the Act.
[ Stoumen v. Reilly , supra, Hubert v. Williams (1982) 133
Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 5, Rolon v. Kulwitzky (1984) 153
Cal.App.3d 289, Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV ,
supra.]
Existing law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of
age, children, familial status, and marital status, except
that certain housing may be reserved for senior citizens.
[Section 51.2 of the Civil Code, Section 12955(a) of the
Government Code, Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson , supra.]
AB 1400
Page
3
Existing law provides that all persons within the
jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from
any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence,
committed against their persons or property because of
their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age,
disability or position in a labor dispute or because
another person perceives them to have one or more of those
characteristics. [Section 51.7 of the Civil Code]
Existing law provides that no franchisor shall discriminate
in the granting of franchises solely because of the race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability of the
franchisee and the racial, ethnic, religious, national
origin, or disability composition of a neighborhood or
geographic area in which the franchise is located. [Section
51.8 of the Civil Code]
Existing law also provides that every provision in a
written instrument relating to real property which purports
to forbid or restrict the conveyance, encumbrance, leasing
or mortgaging of that real property to any person of a
specified sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national
origin, or disability, is void and every restriction or
prohibition as to the use of occupation of real property
because of the user's or occupier's sex, race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, or disability is void.
[Section 53 of the Civil Code]
This bill enacts "The Civil Rights Act of 2005."
This bill adds, to the enumerated characteristics that are
protected under Section 51, 51.5, 51.7, 51.8, and 53,
sexual orientation and marital status.
This bill imports into the Act definitions of the terms
"disability," medical condition," "religion," "sex," and
"sexual orientation" from the Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA) definitions of those terms. It specifies that
the characteristics listed include the perception that a
person has any of those characteristics or that the person
is associated with another person who has any of those
characteristics.
This bill states that it is the intent of the Legislature
AB 1400
Page
4
that the amendments made to the Act by this act do not
affect the California Supreme Court's rulings in Marina
Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721 and O'Connor v.
Village Green Owners Association (1983) 33 Cal.3d 790.
Related pending legislation . SB 1030 (Hollingsworth)
amends Section 51 to require that the statute not be
construed to provide nonessential services to a member of
the public, if to do so would violate one's conscience due
to a sincerely held belief. This bill is being held in the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/6/05)
Equality California (source)
Aids Project, Los Angeles
American Civil Liberties Union
Anti-Defamation League
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
Asian American Advocacy
Attorney General of California
Bienestar Human Services, Inc.
California Faculty Association
California Labor Federation
California National Organization for Women
First Congregational Church of Long Beach
Gay and Lesbian Adolescent Social Services, Inc.
Gay-Straight Alliance Network
Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission of the City and County
of Sacramento
Lambda Legal
Lambda Letters Project
Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association, Los Angeles
Log Cabin Republicans
Metropolitan Community Church, Los Angeles
National Association of Social Workers
Service Employees International Union
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
Planned Parenthood, Affiliates of California, Inc.
AB 1400
Page
5
Southern California Nevada Conference United Church of
Christ
State Commission on the Status of Women
Stonewall Young Democrats Transgender Law Center
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/6/05)
California Catholic Conference
California Family Alliance
Capitol Resource Institute
Concerned Women for America of California
Eagle Forum of California
San Diego and Imperial Counties
San Luis Paper Co.
Traditional Values Coalition
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states:
"The purpose of this bill is to clarify that gender
identity, marital status, and sexual orientation are
protected classes under the Unruh Civil Rights Act
(Unruh Act) and related provisions?
"While the Unruh Act does not expressly mention gender
identity, marital status or sexual orientation as
grounds of discrimination in which business
establishments in California are forbidden to engage,
the California Supreme Court has rejected the argument
that the Unruh Act's ban on discrimination reaches only
the classifications specified in the Act's
text?[citations omitted]?Because these particular bases
of discrimination are not explicitly listed in the
Unruh Act.., there is an assumption that they are not
protected classes covered by these laws. This
assumption has led to unnecessary litigation leading to
erroneous decisions at the trial and appellate court
levels. This proposal will remedy this problem by
making it clearer that these specified characteristics
are covered by the Unruh Act and related provisions.
Moreover, by explicitly listing these characteristics
and providing definitions, [the Act] will be more
consistent in form with more recently enacted
California non-discrimination laws, e.g., the Fair
Employment and Housing Act, which also prohibits
AB 1400
Page
6
discrimination based on these characteristics, but does
so by enumerating them explicitly rather than by
relying on broad legislative intent and case law.
This bill does not break new ground in expanding the
scope of protection provided by the Act. Because it
clarifies existing statutory and case law as to what is
covered, it could reduce litigation and encourage
better compliance with the law.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : California Catholic Conference,
in opposition to this bill, writes that "[B]ecause the
Unruh Act does not define "business establishment" and
because this bill proposes the use of the words "of every
kind whatsoever" without exception and without specifying
kinds of enterprises, the term "business" might be
construed to include churches, church organizations and
associations. This could lead to unwarranted challenges in
the areas of church membership, religious school
admissions, and hiring practices, selection and dismissal
of clergy, etc...AB 1400 fails to recognize and accommodate
sincerely held religious beliefs. This lack of clarity
will potentially lead to frivolous and unnecessary
lawsuits."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Arambula, Baca, Bass, Berg, Bermudez, Calderon,
Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Coto, De La Torre,
Dymally, Evans, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Jerome
Horton, Jones, Klehs, Koretz, Laird, Leno, Levine,
Lieber, Liu, Matthews, Montanez, Mullin, Nation, Nava,
Oropeza, Parra, Pavley, Ridley-Thomas, Ruskin, Saldana,
Salinas, Umberg, Vargas, Wolk, Yee, Nunez
NOES: Aghazarian, Benoit, Blakeslee, Bogh, Cogdill,
Daucher, DeVore, Emmerson, Haynes, Shirley Horton,
Houston, Huff, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Maze,
McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Niello, Plescia, Sharon
Runner, Spitzer, Strickland, Tran, Villines, Walters,
Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Garcia, Gordon, Harman, Karnette,
Negrete McLeod, Richman, Torrico
AB 1400
Page
7
RJG:mel 7/6/05 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****