BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 272 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Jimmy Gomez, Chair AB 272 (Lackey) - As Amended April 15, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Labor and Employment |Vote:|7 - 0 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | |Judiciary | |10 - 0 | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill provides that a person deputized or appointed by the proper authority as a reserve deputy sheriff or a reserve city police officer, is an employee of the county, city, city and county, town, district or other such proper authority for all purposes of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). AB 272 Page 2 FISCAL EFFECT: 1)Minor/absorbable costs to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing as reserve or auxiliary peace officers constitute a small percentage of the workforce and any increase in complaints filed would likely be minimal. 2)Unknown, potentially significant costs to local governments related to civil litigation. The usual damages paid to employees as a result of discrimination is lost wages. Since reserve and auxiliary officers are not paid for their services, they would likely seek punitive damages and legal fees through the courts. This could result in legal costs to local governments, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. According to the author, the purpose of this bill is to protect reserve peace officers under FEHA. By expressly granting employee status to reserve peace officers, this bill would effectively overturn a 2013 California appellate court decision. In Estrada v. City of Los Angeles 218 Cal. App. 4th 143 (2013), the court held that the plaintiff, a volunteer police reserve officer appointed by the Los Angeles Chief of Police, was not an employee within the meaning of FEHA. The plaintiff had contended that he was an employee because the city provided him with workers' compensation benefits (even though the city was not required to do so by state law.) Yet the court held that providing the plaintiff with workers' compensation coverage did not transform him into an "employee" for purposes of the FEHA. As a result, the plaintiff could not bring an action against the city alleging disability discrimination. AB 272 Page 3 Existing statute does not provide an affirmative definition of employee; rather, it states what is excluded: "'Employee' does not include any individual employed by his or parents, spouse, or child, or any individual employed under a special license in a nonprofit sheltered workshop or rehabilitation facility." The Department of Fair Employment and Housing enacted regulations under FEHA that define an employee as any individual "under the direction and control of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire of apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written." (2 CCR Section 7286.5 (b).) Although courts in Mendoza and Estrada concluded that an individual must receive some form of compensation in order to be considered an employee, the regulatory definition does not include such a requirement. Reserve peace officers are appointed by, and under the supervision of, a local law enforcement authority. This bill seeks to clarify that reserve peace officers are, therefore, employees for purposes of FEHA. 2)Prior related legislation. AB 1443 (Skinner), Chapter 302, Statutes of 2014, amended the harassment provisions under FEHA to include unpaid interns and volunteers, meaning that such individuals are now protected from unlawful employment harassment in a manner similar to employees. AB 272 Page 4 Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081