BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
1020 N Street, Suite 524
(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) 327-4478
.
THIRD READING
.
Bill No: AB 1100
Author: Speier (D)
Amended: 8/31/95 in Senate
Vote: 21
.
SENATE BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 7/10/95
AYES: Ayala, Craven, Greene, Rosenthal, Boatwright
NOES: Kelley
NOT VOTING: Killea, O'Connell, Johannessen
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/22/95
AYES: Campbell, Lockyer, Mello, O'Connell, Petris, Solis,
Calderon
NOT VOTING: Wright, Leslie
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 41-35, 6/2/95 - See last page for vote
.
SUBJECT: Civil rights: gender-based discrimination
SOURCE: Author
.
DIGEST: This bill prohibits gender-based discrimination
in the pricing of services.
ANALYSIS: Existing law prohibits a business
establishment from discriminating against a person because
of the sex of the person, and specifies the remedies for a
violation of this provision. Specifically, existing law:
1. Known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA), states that
all persons within the jurisdiction of the state are
CONTINUED
AB 1100
Page
2
entitled to the full and equal accommodations,
advantages, facilities, privileges and services in all
business establishments, regardless of sex, race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin or disability.
2. Provides for remedies (e.g., actual damages, punitive
damages, attorney fees and injunctive relief) for
violations of the UCRA which may be sought through the
filing of a civil action by the Attorney General, a
district attorney, city attorney or any aggrieved person
against anyone who denies, or aids, or incites a denial
of rights.
This bill:
1. Known as the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, provides
that no business establishment may discriminate, with
respect to the price charged for services of a similar
or like kind, because of the person's gender. Insurance
rating practices and health service plans are
specifically excluded from the prohibitions against
discrimination in this bill.
2. Provides limited remedies (as prescribed in current law)
for violations of the provisions of the act, which may
be sought through filing a civil suit wherein actual
damages and attorney fees may be awarded.
Comments
The Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection, Governmental
Efficiency and Economic Development held an interim hearing
in 1994 on "Gender Discrimination in the Pricing and
Availability of Products and Services." According to the
author, data collected in conjunction with that hearing
documents that adult women effectively pay a gender tax
which costs each woman approximately $1,351 annually, or
about $15 billion for all women in California. The gender
tax is the additional amount women pay for similar goods
and services due to gender-based discrimination in pricing.
According to the Assembly policy committee analysis,
gender-based discrimination in pricing has been documented
in the following books, studies and reports: "Gender-Based
CONTINUED
AB 1100
Page
3
Discrimination in the Laundry Business," (Public Law
Research Institute, 1987); "Gypped by Gender," (NYC
Department of Consumer Affairs, 1992); "Why Women Pay
More," (Center for Study of Responsive Law, 1993); "A
Survey of Haircuts & Laundry Services in California,"
(Assembly Office of Research [AOR], 1994), which found that
women in California pay on the average $5 more for a
haircut and $1.71 more to have a shirt laundered. The AOR
survey also found that 64 percent of those establishments
surveyed in five major California cities charged more to
launder a woman's white cotton shirt than a man's.
According to the Senate Business and Professions Committee,
while it could be argued that the UCRA already prohibits
gender-based price discrimination, the only published
California case which relies on the UCRA to disallow price
discrimination does so in the narrow context of special
discounts for "Ladies Night" at a bar, and "Ladies Day" at
a car wash. In 1905, Section 51 of the Civil Code stated
that all "citizens" were entitled to full and equal
accommodations and privileges at most businesses. Section
51 was expanded to cover public conveyances in 1919, and
refreshment stands in 1923. In 1959, race, color,
religion, ancestry and national origin were specified as
protected classes; additionally, the scope of services
included within the law was expanded to cover "all business
establishments of every kind whatsoever." "Citizen" was
replaced by "person" in 1961. In 1974, UCRA prohibitions
against discrimination were extended to include gender, and
in 1992 disabilities. In general, as particular types of
discrimination were recognized as unjust, they were
disallowed through statute.
Prior Legislation
AB 2418 (Speier, 1994) would have prohibited gender
discrimination in pricing of goods and services, but was
vetoed. The Governor's objections to AB 2418 have been
addressed in this bill, which now (1) only applies to
services, not products; (2) specifically allows for
differences in prices based on differences in services
provided; and (3) amends the Civil Code, instead of the
Business and Professions Code.
CONTINUED
AB 1100
Page
4
AB 2418 passed the Senate 21-13 (Noes: Beverly, Hurtt,
Johannessen, Kelley, Leonard, Leslie, Lewis, Maddy, Peace,
Rogers, Russell, Wright, Wyman).
SB 1288 (Calderon, Chapter 535, Statutes of 1994) directs
the Department of Consumer Affairs to send notices to
cosmetologists regarding what constitutes illegal pricing
practices.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
CONTINUED
AB 1100
Page
5
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/31/95)
American Association of University Women
California Cosmetology Association
California Fabricare Institute
California Business and Professional Women
California Nurses Association
Consumers Union
Equal Rights Advocates
Lambda Letters Project
Older Women's League
Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles
Life AIDS Lobby
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author's office,
existing law does not sufficiently protect individuals from
gender-based price discrimination. This bill would
prohibit gender-based discrimination in the pricing of
services. According to the author, such discrimination in
pricing commonly occurs in the sale of services related to
haircuts, laundry, dry cleaning and alterations. The
author states that Washington DC has a similar law and
that Florida is considering one.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR:
AYES: Alpert, Archie-Hudson, Baca, Bates, Bowen, V. Brown,
Burton, Bustamante, Caldera, Campbell, Cannella, Cortese,
Cunneen, Davis, Ducheny, Figueroa, Friedman, Gallegos,
Hannigan, Hauser, Isenberg, Katz, Knox, Kuehl, Lee,
Machado, Martinez, Mazzoni, McDonald, McPherson, K.
Murray, W. Murray, Napolitano, Sher, Speier, Sweeney,
Tucker, Vasconcellos, Villaraigosa, Woods, W. Brown
NOES: Aguiar, Alby, Allen, Baldwin, Battin, Boland,
Bordonaro, Bowler, Brewer, Brulte, Conroy, Firestone,
Frusetta, Goldsmith, Granlund, Harvey, Hawkins, Hoge,
Kaloogian, Knight, Knowles, Kuykendall, Miller,
Morrissey, Morrow, Olberg, Poochigian, Pringle, Rainey,
Richter, Rogan, Setencich, Takasugi, Thompson, Weggeland
NOT VOTING: Escutia, House
CONTINUED
CP:ctl 8/31/95 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****