BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 242|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 242
Author: Yee (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 3/31/09
AYES: Corbett, Florez, Leno
NOES: Harman, Walters
SUBJECT : Civil rights: language restrictions
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill makes it a violation of the Unruh
Civil Rights Act to adopt or enforce a policy that limits
or prohibits the use of any language in a business
establishment, unless the language is justified by a
business necessity and notification has been provided of
the circumstances and the time when the language
restriction is required to be observed, and of the
consequences for its violation.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act,
generally prohibits business establishments from
discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical
condition, and provides civil remedies for violations of
its provisions.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment Housing Act
CONTINUED
SB 242
Page
2
(FEHA), provides that it is an unlawful employment practice
for an employer to adopt or enforce a policy that prohibits
the use of any language in the workplace, except if that
policy is justified by business necessity and prescribed
notice of the policy and consequences for violation of the
policy is given to employees.
This bill makes it a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights
Act to adopt or enforce a policy that limits or prohibits
the use of any language in a business establishment, unless
the language is justified by a business necessity and
notification has been provided of the circumstances and the
time when the language restriction is required to be
observed, and of the consequences for its violation.
This bill defines "business necessity" as an overriding
legitimate business purpose for which all of the following
are true: (1) the language restriction is necessary to the
safe and efficient operation of the business, (2) the
language restriction effectively fulfills the business
purpose it is supposed to serve, and (3) an alternative
practice to the language restriction that would accomplish
the business purpose equally well with a lesser
discriminatory impact does not exist. This definition of
"business necessity" is consistent with the one codified in
the FEHA.
This bill provides for an award of damages, and attorney's
fees as may be determined by the court, for a violation of
its provisions.
This bill provides that nothing in this bill shall be
construed to limit application of any other remedies or
rights provided under the law.
Background
In 2008, the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA)
announced a proposed policy that would have required
players on the tour to be proficient in English by the end
of 2009 and pass an oral evaluation of their English skills
or face a membership suspension. The LPGA asserted that it
was important for players to be able to interact with the
American media and event sponsors even though many of the
SB 242
Page
3
tour's sponsors are international companies, and a number
of the tournaments do not take place in the United States.
Notably, no other professional sports team in the United
States has a similar requirement. The LPGA ultimately
rescinded the proposal after the author of this bill, and
other lawmakers, along with numerous civil rights
organizations, raised objections to the policy.
Various statutes, such as FEHA and the Unruh Civil Rights
Act, prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public
accommodation, and services provided by business
establishments on the basis of specified personal
characteristics such as sex, race, color, national origin,
religion, and disability. Over time, these statutes
evolved to include other characteristics such as medical
condition and marital status and to generally reflect the
state's public policy against discrimination in all forms.
Although FEHA currently contains provisions that prohibit
employers from enacting policies that restrict the use of
any language among their employees, there is nothing in
current law that generally prohibits business
establishments to place such restrictions on patrons or, in
the case of the LPGA tour, participants/competitors. This
bill seeks to further enhance protections in the Unruh
Civil Rights Act in order to prevent the implementation of
language restriction policies in the future.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/1/09)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Anti-Defamation League
California Nurses Association
California State Conference of the NAACP
Fil-Am Star
Japanese-American Citizens League
Korean American Bar Association of Northern California
Korean American Coalition
San Francisco Japanese American Citizens League
SB 242
Page
4
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states:
"While speaking one's native language is protected in
cases of employment and housing under state law, such
protections are not provided under the state's civil
rights act, which prohibits discrimination within
business establishments.
"Unless English is justified by a business necessity, no
one should be discriminated against simply for speaking
their language. SB 242 will rightfully add language to
the list of protected classes within California's civil
rights act."
RJG:mw 4/1/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****