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