BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1400
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1400 (Laird)
As Amended July 7, 2005
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |44-29|(April 14, |SENATE: |22-15|(August 22, |
| | |2005) | | |2005) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Harmonizes non-discrimination provisions of the Civil
Code regarding business establishments, real property and other
matters. Specifically, this bill :
1)Adds sexual orientation and marital status to the Unruh Civil
Rights Act's (Unruh Act) guarantee of full and equal
accommodations and services in business establishments, as
well as to Civil Code Section 51.5 prohibiting discrimination
by business establishments; Section 51.7 prohibiting violence
and intimidation by any person; Section 51.8 regarding
non-discrimination in the granting of franchises by
franchisors; and, Section 53 regarding discriminatory
restrictions in written instruments related to real property.
Clarifies that the listed characteristics in these statutes
are not exclusive.
2)Conforms the types of protected characteristics expressly
identified in the Unruh Act with the related
non-discrimination provisions immediately following the Unruh
Act regarding other prohibited discrimination, such as
violence and threats of violence, discrimination against
franchisees, and discrimination in real property transactions.
3)Defines religion, sex, sexual orientation, perceived
characteristics and other terms consistently with the
definitions used in the cognate provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act.
4)Makes findings and declarations relevant to the foregoing.
The Senate amendments clarify that the bill does not affect the
California Supreme Court's well-settled rulings in Marina Point,
Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721 and O'Connor v. Village
AB 1400
Page 2
Green Owners Association (1983) 33 Cal.3d 790.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantively
identical.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : The author states that the purpose of this bill is to
confirm and clarify that gender identity, marital status and
sexual orientation have been protected personal characteristics
under the Unruh Act and related provisions. The author adds,
"[w]hile the Unruh Act does not expressly mention [all] ?
grounds of discrimination in which business establishments in
California are forbidden to engage, the California Supreme Court
? has made clear that the Unruh Act also prohibits arbitrary
discrimination based on other non-enumerated 'personal
characteristics,' including sexual orientation, physical
appearance, and family status. The Court has also made it clear
that the Act should be interpreted broadly to prohibit arbitrary
discrimination including discrimination based on geographical
origin, physical attributes, and individual beliefs. This bill
affirms this principle by including [a non-statutory
declaration] that the identification of particular bases of
discrimination in these provisions is illustrative and not
restrictive." The codification of marital status protection was
recently reinforced in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club
(August 1, 2005, S124179) __ Cal.4th __ [2005 Cal. LEXIS 8359]
which, consistently with this bill, confirmed that, like the
existing coverage of sexual orientation, marital status is a
protected personal characteristic, and that discrimination
against an individual or a couple for being married or unmarried
is cognizable under Unruh, subject to certain defenses, and that
discrimination on grounds not covered by Unruh may not be
employed as a device for accomplishing discrimination that is
prohibited by the act.
The author further states, "Because these particular bases of
discrimination are not explicitly listed in the Unruh Act and
related provisions (except for sexual orientation in Civil Code
section 51.7), 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
AB 1400
Page 3
provisions."
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0011585