BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    


|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                  AB 1670|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
|(916) 445-6614         Fax: (916) |                         |
|327-4478                          |                         |
                       THIRD READING

Bill No:  AB 1670
Author:   Assembly Judiciary Committee
Amended:  9/3/99 in Senate
Vote:     21

AYES:  Burton, Escutia, O'Connell, Sher, Schiff
NOES:  Morrow, Wright
NOT VOTING:  Haynes, Peace

AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Karnette,  
  Perata, Vasconcellos
NOES: Johnson, Kelley, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy

  ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  41-31, 6/3/99 - See last page for vote

  SUBJECT  :    Civil Rights:  Employment and Housing

  SOURCE  :     California Office of the Attorney General
            California Fair Employment and Housing  
            American Civil Liberties Union
            California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
            California Civil Rights Coalition

  DIGEST  :    This is an omnibus bill which would make several  
changes to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act  
(FEHA) and Civil Code relating to employment and housing  
discrimination.  Specifically, the key provisions of this  


                                                     AB 1670

 1.  Increase the amount of damages and administrative  
    fines that may be awarded by the Fair Employment and  
    Housing Commission in employment discrimination cases  
    from $50,000 to $150,000, and permit a court to award  
    expert witness fees to a prevailing party in FEHA  

 2.  Extend harassment protections under FEHA to contract  

 3.  Require employers to provide reasonable accommodations  
    to pregnant employees.

 4.  Clarify that genetic testing of employees is  

 5.  Expand the class of employers subject to FEHA's  
    prohibition against discrimination on the basis of  
    mental disability from those with 15 or more employees  
    to those with five or more employees.

 6.  Clarify that protections against housing and  
    employment discrimination cover discrimination based  
    upon a victim's perceived membership in a protected  

 7.  Define "supervisor" under the FEHA as it is currently  
    defined in the California Agricultural Labor Relations  

  Senate Floor Amendments  add double-joining language.

  ANALYSIS  :    Existing law prohibits business establishments  
from discriminating against, boycotting or blacklisting, or  
refusing to buy from, sell to, or trade with, any person  
because of the race, creed, religion, color, national  
origin, sex, or disability of that person or the person's  
partners, members, stockholders, directors, officers,  
managers, superintendents, agents, employees, business  
associates, suppliers, or customers.  (Civil Code Section  
51.5, the Unruh Civil Rights Act.)

This bill adds:


                                                     AB 1670

 1.  Protection for  persons perceived to have any of those  
    characteristics, and;

 2.  "Refusal to contract " as a prohibited act.
  Existing law prohibits employment and housing  
discrimination on the basis of race, religious creed,  
color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability,  
mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex  
or age. (Government Code Section 12940 et. Seq., the Fair  
Employment and Housing Act.)
  This bill adds discrimination based upon:

 1.  The perception of a person violating this section that  
    the victim belongs to a protected category, and;

 2.  Association with persons in a protected category.

Existing law provides that the combined amount of damages  
and administrative fines that may be awarded by the State  
Fair Employment and Housing Commission in employment  
discrimination cases is capped at $50,000.  (Section 12970  
(a)(3).)  However, there is no cap at all on the amount of  
damages that may be awarded by the commission in housing  
discrimination cases.  (Section 12987(a).)

This bill increases the amount of damages and  
administrative fines that may be awarded by the State Fair  
Employment and Housing Commission in employment  
discrimination cases from $50,000 to $150,000.

Existing law provides that the State Department of Fair  
Employment and Housing shall respond to complaints of  
discriminatory practices by employers and owners of housing  

This bill:

 1.  Declares that the opportunity to seek, obtain, and  
    hold housing without discrimination on any basis  
    protected under Civil Code Section 51 is a civil right.


                                                     AB 1670

 2.  Declares it is an unlawful housing practice to harass  
    a tenant or prospective tenant, buyer or prospective  
    buyer on any of the bases protected under FEHA.

Existing law authorizes the court in actions brought under  
FEHA to grant any relief normally available to courts in   
civil actions.  In  addition, the court may order any other  
relief in FEHA cases that, "in the judgment of the court,  
will effectuate" the purpose of the Act.  (Section 12965  

This bill:

 1.  Permits a court to award expert witness fees to a  
    prevailing party in FEHA cases.

 2.  Adds the FEHA may be enforced by private parties  
    against agencies which receive public funds through  
    civil actions for equitable relief.

 3.  Authorizes a court in an employment action under FEHA  
    to require employers to conduct employee and supervisor  
    training on the requirements of FEHA and the rights and  
    remedies available for violation.

Existing law makes it an unlawful employment practice under  
FEHA for an employer to refuse to transfer a pregnant  
female employee, upon her request, to a less strenuous or  
hazardous position for the duration of her pregnancy.

This bill makes it an unlawful business practice for any  
employer, including both employers subject to and not  
subject to Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of  
1964, to refuse to provide reasonable accommodations for an  
employee for conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth or  
related medical conditions, if she so requests, with the  
advice of her health care provider.

Existing law declares that it is an unlawful employment  
practice for employers, including employer agents, among  
others, to harass an employee or applicant on the basis of  
various protected characteristics.  However, independent   
contractors are not protected from harassment.


                                                     AB 1670

This bill adds a person providing services pursuant to a  
contract and defines that person as:

 1.  One who has the right to control the performance of  
    the contract for services and discretion as to the  
    manner of performance.

 2.  One who is customarily engaged in an independently  
    established business.

 3.  One who has control over the time and place the work  
    is performed, and performs work that requires a  
    particular skill not ordinarily used in the employer's  

Existing law, FEHA, prohibits employment discrimination  
against individuals with physical disabilities, mental  
disabilities, or medical conditions.  The FEHA applies to  
private employers of 15 or more employees for  
discrimination on the basis of mental disability, and  
private employers of five or more employees for  
discrimination on the basis of physical disability.

This bill applies FEHA to private employers of five or more  
employees for discrimination on the basis of mental  
Existing law prohibits employment discrimination on the  
basis of genetic characteristics.

This bill clarifies that genetic testing of employees is  
also prohibited.

Existing law does not contain a definition of "supervisor"  
in the FEHA.
  Existing law defines "supervisor" under the California  
Agricultural Labor Relations Act (CALRA) as any individual  
having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to  
hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, promote,  
discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees,  
or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their  
grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if in  
connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that  
authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature,  


                                                     AB 1670

but requires the use of independent judgment.

This bill would apply the CALRA definition of supervisor to  

The bill provides that the amendments made by this act to  
Section 51.5 of the Civil Code and to Sections 12926, 12927  
and 12955 of the Government Code do not constitute a change  
in, but are declaratory of, existing law.

This bill is double-joined with SB 211 (Solis), SB 1098  
(Burton), SB 1148 (Burton), and SB 1185 (Johnston).

 Discussion of provisions which have drawn opposition  

 1.   Extending FEHA harassment protection to contract  
    This bill allows a person providing services pursuant  
    to a contract to sue for harassment under FEHA.  This  
    is a limited protection for contract workers, as AB  
    1670 does not extend the full employment discrimination  
    prohibitions contained in FEHA to them.

    The bill's supporters acknowledge that sexual  
    harassment laws were originally premised on the idea  
    that a woman could not get away from a harasser's  
    advances without losing her job, or suffering some  
    other adverse employment action.  Independent  
    contractors were excluded from the employment  
    protection statutes, as it was considered that they  
    could get away, not being bound as an employee to the  
    bad situation.  However, the dynamics of employment  
    have changed in recent years, they say.  Today  
    employers have substantially increased the use of   
    contract workers as a cost savings measure.  With the  
    switch from employment to contract status, "the duties  
    remained the same, only the benefits changed."   
    Situations where a contract employee could be subjected  
    to harassment without recourse include a self-employed  
    specialist such as a graphic designer, who works  
    "in-house" on a company's newsletter; or a long-term  
    "independent contractor," who performs as a traditional  
    employee, but is never made a true employee--thereby  


                                                     AB 1670

    saving the employer from paying taxes and benefits.

    Opponents object to this provision fearing it  
    "obliterates the distinction between employees and  
    independent contractors."  The California Manufacturers  
    Association believes, "This could result in employers  
    being held liable for the payment of workers  
    compensation insurance, payroll taxes, etc., plus any  
    penalties and interest that may accrue."  The Civil  
    Justice Association of California adds, "creating this  
    exception to the independent contractor status would  
    simply open employers to targeting for frivolous  
    lawsuits by persons who have little stake in trying to  
    solve a potentially bad worksite situation with  
    something less than a lawsuit.  Where a serious  
    harassment does occur, independent contractors have  
    recourse to laws relating to assault and battery."

 2.   Raise the cap on employment discrimination damages  

    This bill increases the amount of damages and  
    administrative fines that may be awarded by the State  
    Fair Employment and Housing Commission in employment  
    discrimination cases from $50,000 to $150,000.  As  
    noted above, there is no cap on the amount of damages  
    that may be awarded by the commission in housing  
    discrimination cases.

    According to the author, "It is hoped that this  
    augmentation in available damages that may be awarded  
    by the Commission under FEHA will make resolution of  
    discrimination complaints via the administrative  
    process rather than court more attractive to  
    plaintiffs.  By raising the cap on damage awards in  
    employment discrimination cases, the Committee hopes to  
    encourage more plaintiffs to choose the less  
    cumbersome, and less expensive, option of  
    administrative action over the more lengthy and costly  
    court option."

    Opponents, such as the California Chamber of Commerce,  
    claim that "the current level of $50,000 is a  
    legislative compromise, which gave to the DFEH the  
    authority to impose capped punitive damages.  If any  


                                                     AB 1670

    further  increase is appropriate, the same limit should  
    apply in employment cases filed with the civil courts.   
    The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC)  
    adds, "tripling the $50,000 cap to $150,000 on damages  
    and administrative fines assessed by the State  
    Department of Fair Employment and Housing makes the  
    employer liability similar to that of civil court.   
    This provision removes an employer's incentive to use  
    administrative remedies and would needlessly add to the  
    already clogged California Courts."

    T    he current $50,000 was put in place through  
    passage of AB 311 (Moore), Ch. 911, Statutes of 1992,  
    which provided the commission constitutional authority  
    to award compensatory damages under FEHA, capped at  
    $50,000.   Also included in AB 311 was a requirement  
    that the commission report back to the Legislature on  
    the adequacy of the amount available to compensate  
    victims of discrimination and administrative fines  
    permitted by AB 311 by January 1, 1995.

    The 1995 commission report provided important support  
    for at least raising the $50,000 cap on damages and  
    administrative fines by stating that "The [current]  
    $50,000 ceiling may ... have the unintended effect of  
    encouraging complainants to file civil actions in the  
    courts rather than making use of the administrative  
    forum.  A primary reason for authorizing the commission  
    to award emotional distress damages and administrative  
    fines was to encourage FEHA litigants to remain in the  
    administrative forum, which is generally more timely  
    and less costly to parties than court litigation.   
    Because the $50,000 ceiling is relatively low compared  
    to the five-, six-, and even seven-figure awards  
    sometimes ordered in FEHA court suits, complainants may  
    be inclined to take their cases to court rather than  
    stay in the administrative forum.  Thus, it may be  
    appropriate to consider raising the ceiling."

 3.   Supervisor defined  

    FEHA prohibits harassment of an employee . . . by an  
    employee other than an agent or supervisor if the  
    entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should  


                                                     AB 1670

    have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate  
    and appropriate corrective action.  There is no  
    definition of supervisor in FEHA.  This bill imports  
    into FEHA the definition of supervisor from the CALRA.

    According to the author, "This common sense definition  
    should help clarify for employers and employees alike,  
    as well as for the courts, those individuals who are  
    acting with supervisorial authority for purposes of the  
    Fair Employment and Housing Act."

    The Civil Justice Association of California opposes the  
    bill, in part, because "This broad definition (of  
    supervisor) will greatly expand liability in the  
    workplace.  Employers will be vicariously liable for  
    alleged harassment or discrimination of supervisors,  
    even if the employer is unaware of the incident."  CJAC  
    also opposes this provision of the bill in part because  
    of their belief that, "This bill extends the liability  
    of supervisors in discrimination and harassment cases?"

    In Fiol v. Doelstedt (App.2 Dist. 1996) 50 Cal.App.4th  
    1318, the court held that "The 'agent of an employer'  
    language in section 12940, subdivision (h)(3)(A), does  
    not impose personal liability on a non-harassing  
    supervisor?"  As this legislation only defines  
    supervisor, and does not address the Fiol holding on  
    personal liability, the opposition seems unfounded on  
    this point.

 4.   Accommodation of pregnant workers  

    This bill requires an employer to reasonably  
    accommodate pregnant employees.  Current law prohibits  
    discrimination against a worker based upon her  
    temporary disability of being pregnant.  The law also  
    requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for  
    disabled employees, and it allows pregnant women to  
    request a transfer to a less strenuous position as a  
    means of accommodation.

    The author states in support of this provision, " FEHA  
    does not yet expressly permit less costly, and often  
    more desirable and appropriate, accommodations for  


                                                     AB 1670

    pregnant employees that fall short of job transfer.   
    The proposed amendment to FEHA regarding pregnancy is  
    intended to permit employers to allow pregnant  
    employees to remain in their current positions for  
    longer time periods without the need for transfer,  
    while assuring that less costly and disruptive steps  
    (such as simply permitting more frequent restroom  
    breaks or rest periods) are taken for pregnant  
    employees who do not want or need to be transferred  
    from their current positions.

    The California Chamber of Commerce opposes this  
    provision, claiming, "There is no definition of what  
    reasonable accommodation is and this will lead to  
    increased litigation."  However, reasonable  
    accommodation is defined in existing law as, "making  
    existing facilities used by employees readily  
    accessible to, and usable by, individuals with  
    disabilities, or job restructuring, part-time or  
    modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant  
    position, acquisition or modification of equipment or  
    devices."  Government Code Section 12926 (m).   
    Therefore, this objection seems overstated.

 5.   Allowing courts to impose discrimination awareness  
    training as a remedy  

    This bill provides that a court may require an employer  
    found to be in violation of FEHA to conduct training of  
    its employees, supervisors, and management regarding  
    the requirements of the Act.  FEHA currently authorizes  
    a court to grant any relief normally available to  
    courts in civil actions.  In addition, the court may  
    order any other relief in FEHA cases that, "in the   
    judgment of the court, will effectuate" the purpose of  
    the Act.

    According to the author, "This bill simply clarifies  
    that such relief may include "a requirement that the  
    employer conduct training for all employees,  
    supervisors, and management on the requirements of  
    [FEHA], the rights and remedies of those who allege a  
    violation of [the Act], and the employer's internal  
    grievance procedures."


                                                     AB 1670

    Both the California Chamber of Commerce and California  
    Manufacturers Association (CMA) oppose this provision,  
    with CMA saying, "While the employment discrimination  
    may have been an isolated case, a judge could require  
    training to be conducted for thousands of employees who  
    are not involved at a tremendous cost to the employer  
    for no useful purpose."

 6.   Expert witness fees  

    This bill permits the court to award expert witness  
    fees to a prevailing party.  The author points out that  
    "the federal counterpart to FEHA is Title VII, which  
    expressly permits the award of expert witness fees as  
    part of the reimbursement of costs available to a  
    prevailing party.  (Section 2000e-5(k) of Title VII).   
    In addition, this approach is also consistent with the  
    approach FEHA already takes regarding attorney's fees  
    and court costs; the act permits a court in any civil  
    action brought under FEHA to award, with certain  
    exceptions, the prevailing party reasonable attorney's  
    fees and costs."

    The California Manufacturers Association opposes this  
    provision of the bill because, "allowing the court to  
    award expert witness fees to the prevailing party will  
    encourage dueling experts and increase litigation."

 7.   Religious concerns seem misdirected  

    A number of opposition letters object to this bill  
    because of the writers' beliefs that it would extend  
    actions under FEHA to gay persons.  The Seventh-Day  
    Adventist Church State Council and Traditional Values  
    Coalition (TVC) also oppose the bill based upon this  
    belief, with TVC saying, "this bill takes sexual  
    behavior, homosexuality and bisexuality, and grants  
    minority status to them.  Even though the author stated  
    on the Assembly Floor that the bill does not effect  
    (sic) homosexuality, that was not true.  Section 4 of  
    this AB 1670 amends Section 12921 (b) of the Government  
    Code by adding 'any other basis prohibited by Section  
    51 of the Civil Code is hereby recognized as and  


                                                     AB 1670

    declared to be a civil right.'  Section 51.7 of the  
    Civil Code includes sexual orientation."

    This conclusion seems to stem from a mistake of  
    statutory construction.  It is axiomatic that expressio  
    unius est exclusio alterius, the specific expression of  
    one thing excludes all others.  Pratt, Legal Writing:   
    A Systematic Approach (2d Ed. 1990) p. 341.  Under this  
    rule of statutory construction a reference to Section  
    51 does not extend to cover any other section of law.   
    This is true unless the bill states an intention to  
    extend beyond the referenced provision, as may be  
    accomplished by inclusion of a phrase such as et  
    sequentes (and the following), or a listing of the  
    additional provisions intended to be covered.

    In this instance, the bill only references Section 51.   
    Without any indication in the language of the bill, and  
    with the author clearly stating that the bill does not  
    cover homosexuals, the concern that this bill somehow  
    extends gay rights seems misplaced.

    It should be noted that the committee is also in  
    receipt of letters from churches and religious  
    organizations which support this bill.  For example,  
    this from the Fresno Metro Ministry.  "Fresno Metro  
    Ministry believes that all persons should be free from  
    harassment and discrimination in their home and  
    workplace and we think AB 1670 goes a long way towards  
    achieving that goal.  In its thirty years, Fresno Metro  
    Ministry has seldom taken stands on specific  
    legislative proposals.  However, in this instance we  
    feel compelled to do so.  As a faith-based  
    organization, the board and members of Fresno Metro  
    Ministry have become increasingly concerned about the  
    negative tenor and tactics of distortion and  
    intimidation some in the religious-political community  
    are using.  We find these tactics to be objectionable  
    and harmful to the community, and not reflective of  
    many members of the faith community."

     Major non-controverted provisions of the bill  

 1.   Protection against discrimination based on association  


                                                    AB 1670

    and perceived membership in a protected class
    The bill provides that FEHA's protections against  
    housing and employment discrimination, and Civil Code  
    Section 51.5's protections against discrimination in  
    boycotting, buying, selling, and trading, also cover  
    discrimination based upon the perception that a victim  
    is a member of a particular protected class.  It also  
    amends Civil Code Section 51.5 to include the "refusal  
    to contract with" as part of the statute's  
    discrimination protections.

    In addition, the bill states that FEHA's protections  
    against housing and employment discrimination cover  
    associational rights as well, i.e., discrimination  
    based upon perceptions about whom one may be  
    associating with will now be protected under the act.   
    The author offers that discrimination involving the  
    improper firing of an African-American woman because  
    she was dating a white man, or discrimination against a  
    prospective renter because his friends are of a  
    different racial background, appropriately could be  
    brought within FEHA's protective umbrella.

 2.   Prohibition against harassment in housing  

    This bill declares it is an unlawful housing practice  
    for a housing owner to harass a tenant or prospective  
    tenant on any of the bases protected under FEHA.   
    According to the author, this bill is intended to  
                                                                        eliminate the current statutory ambiguity noted by the  
    court and adds the term  "harassment" to that part of  
    the act.  The bill also clarifies that the opportunity  
    to seek, obtain, and hold housing free from  
    discrimination is a civil right of equal import as that  
    right already expressed regarding discrimination-free  

    This provision is consistent with a recent state court  
    of appeal decision, Brown v. Smith (1997) 55 Cal.App.  
    4th 767, where the court held that while the housing  
    side of FEHA does not mention the word "harassment," it  
    is a variety of sex discrimination and therefore  
    subject to the protections of FEHA.  ( Id. at 782.)  In  


                                                     AB 1670

    Brown, a tenant was subject to severe instances of  
    sexual harassment by her landlord, who repeatedly  
    pressured her for sexual relations in exchange for  
    favorable rent.  The appellate court clarified that  
    even though FEHA does not expressly mention harassment  
    in its housing discrimination proscriptions, the act  
    covers it as a form of prohibited discrimination.

 3.   Private "equitable" remedy against entities which  
    receive state funds  

    This bill provides that the prohibition against  
    discrimination by agencies or entities receiving state  
    funds is enforceable through a civil action for  
    equitable relief.

    Under current law (subdivision (a) of Government Code  
    Section 11135), "No person in the State of California  
    shall, on the basis of ethnic group identification,  
    religion, age, sex, color, or disability, be unlawfully  
    denied the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to  
    discrimination under, any program or activity that is  
    funded directly by the state or receives any financial  
    assistance from the state."

    Thus, according to the author, "under this provision,  
    entities undertaking programs or activities that are  
    funded directly by the State, and entities that receive  
    financial assistance from the State, may not unlawfully  
    deny benefits or discriminate on the basis of any of  
    the specified protected categories.

    As required by current Government Code Section 11139.5,  
    the secretary of the State Department of Health and  
    Human Services, together with the State Fair Employment  
    and Housing Commission, have established regulations  
    determining what persons are protected by these  
    provisions and what practices are discriminatory.  (See  
    22 Cal. Code Reg. Section 98000 et. seq.).  Although  
    the commission's exclusive authority to fashion  
    remedies for discrimination is not limited by these  
    provisions, there has been some confusion in the courts  
    about the ability to bring a private cause of action to  
    enforce the prohibition against discrimination by  


                                                     AB 1670

    agencies or entities receiving state funds.  At least  
    one California court of appeal has held that there is  
    no such right under Government Code Section 11135.

    Arriaga v. Loma Linda University  (1992) 10 Cal.App.  
    4th 1556.  However, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court  
    of Appeal has held that such a private right is  
    available.  Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness v.  
    Zolin  (9th Cir. 1987) 812 F.2d 1103, 1113-1114.

    The author states, "this bill does not settle that  
    conflict about available enforcement remedies, but it  
    does clarify that the prohibition against  
    discrimination by agencies or entities receiving state  
    funds is at least enforceable through a civil action  
    for equitable relief.  This will permit private  
    individuals to seek judicial relief to force agencies  
    or entities receiving state funds to halt their  
    discriminatory practices."

  Prior Related Legislation 

SB 654 (Johnston), 6/18/98, 21-10, Chapter 99, Statutes of  
1998, prohibited discrimination under FEHA based upon  
genetic characteristics.

AB 310 (Kuehl), 1998, would have:

 1.  Defined employer to exclude religious corporations,  
    associations, educational institutions, or societies  
    with respect to the employment of individuals of a  
    particular religion to perform work connected with the  
    carrying on the activities of the religious group (the  
    current federal standard);

 2.  Defined "supervisor," and made a supervisor  
    individually liable if they fail to act upon claims of  
    harassment of an employee by another employee;

 3.  Extended the prohibition of sexual harassment to  
    include a person who provides services under contract;

 4.  Allowed the State Department of Fair Employment and  
    Housing (DFEH) to undertake independent investigations  


                                                     AB 1670

    of employment and housing discrimination;

 5.  Required that an employer reasonably accommodate a  
    pregnant female;

 6.  Defined "harassment" and clarified that it is viewed  
    from the reasonable person of the victim's same-gender  

 7.  Prohibited employers from engaging in genetic testing,  
    except where a bona fide occupational qualification  
    exists, and prohibited genetic trait discrimination;

 8.  Lifted the monetary cap on the award of actual damages  
    for pain and suffering in employment discrimination  

 9.  Allowed a court to award expert witness fees to a  
    prevailing party, and;

 10. Provided that the FEHA does not prohibit a city and  
    county, or other political subdivision of this State  
    from providing or maintaining greater protections for  
    the classes of persons protected by the provisions  
    relating to housing discrimination.

Then-Governor Wilson vetoed AB 310, based upon the  
independent contractor liability provision of the bill.  He  
stated, "this bill would, among other provisions, seek to  
extend liability so as to hold employers liable for the  
harassment of independent contractors.  California's  
discrimination laws are predicated on the traditional  
employer and employee relationship, which under both the  
Labor and Government Codes require certain duties and  
responsibilities.  This bill would give protection against  
discrimination to non-employees who are independent  
contractors engaged in independently established businesses  
with, among other things, the right to control how and when  
their work is performed."

  Prior Legislation  :

SB 48 (Solis), 1998, subsequently amended to remove  
relevant provisions and vetoed.


                                                     AB 1670

SB 1254 (Calderon) subsequently amended into an educational  
reform measure, Chapter 400, Statutes of 1998.

SB 654 (Johnston), Chapter 99, Statutes of 1998,

AB 310 (Kuehl), vetoed

  FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
Local:  No

                Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

  Major Provisions     1999-2000    2000-01     2001-02     Fund

  FEHA               Unknown increased costs, probablyGeneral
                   not substantial, potentially offset
                   by unknown increased fine revenues
Courts             Unknown                        General

  SUPPORT  :   (Verified  9/1/99)

California Office of the Attorney General (co-source)
California Fair Employment and Housing Commission  
American Civil Liberties Union (co-source)
California Labor Federation AFL-CIO (co-source)
California Civil Rights Coalition (co-source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal  
California School Employees Association
California National Organization for Women
Equal Rights Advocates
Legal Aid Society of San Francisco
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay  
California Conference of the Amalgamated Transit Union
Engineers and Scientists of California
Region 8 States Council of the United Food and Commercial  
Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees International Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Commission On The Status Of Women
American Association of University Women


                                                     AB 1670

Consumer Attorneys of California

  OPPOSITION  :    (Unable to verify at time of writing)

California Employment Law Council
Civil Justice Association of California
Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council
Traditional Values Coalition
California Manufacturers Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Numerous individuals

AYES:  Alquist, Aroner, Bock, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo,  
  Corbett, Correa, Davis, Ducheny, Dutra, Firebaugh,  
  Florez, Gallegos, Hertzberg, Honda, Jackson, Keeley,  
  Knox, Kuehl, Lempert, Longville, Lowenthal, Mazzoni,  
  Migden, Nakano, Papan, Reyes, Romero, Scott, Shelley,  
  Steinberg, Strom-Martin, Thomson, Torlakson, Vincent,  
  Wayne, Wesson, Wildman, Wright, Villaraigosa
NOES:  Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Baldwin, Bates, Battin,  
  Baugh, Briggs, Campbell, Cox, Dickerson, Frusetta,  
  Granlund, Havice, House, Kaloogian, Leach, Leonard,  
  Machado, Maddox, Maldonado, Margett, McClintock, Olberg,  
  Oller, Robert Pacheco, Pescetti, Runner, Strickland,  
  Thompson, Zettel
NOT VOTING:  Brewer, Calderon, Cunneen, Floyd, Rod Pacheco,  
  Soto, Washington, Wiggins

RJG:kb  9/5/99   Senate Floor Analyses 


                      ****  END  ****