BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2377
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2000
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Dion Aroner, Chair
AB 2377 (Longville) - As Amended: April 13, 2000
SUBJECT : Regional centers: employee liability
SUMMARY : Limits the liability of regional employees.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Exempts regional center employees from liability for civil
damages where an injury or death was the result of an act or
omission by the employee, if the act or omission fell under
the discretionary power of the employee and the employee acted
in good faith.
1)Presumes that a regional center employee is acting in good
faith, and exempts the employee from civil or criminal
liability and any other penalty, when he or she participates
in filing a complaint or providing information about a
consumer, a consumer's family, a vendor, or facility staff,
unless the presumption is rebutted.
1)Exempts regional center employees from damages imposed
primarily to punish the employee or for the sake of example.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services
Act, under which the Department of Developmental Services
(DDS) contracts with 21 private non-profit regional centers to
provide case management services and arrange for, or purchase,
other services that meet the needs of individuals with
developmental disabilities.
1)Provides for the licensure of medical and non-medical
residential and day programs that serve developmentally
disabled individuals, and establishes a rate system to pay for
the provision of care in these programs.
1)Exempts public employees from liability for an injury
resulting from an act or omission, where the act or omission
was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in the
AB 2377
Page 2
public employees.
1)Excludes juvenile court social workers, child protective
workers, and other public employees authorized to conduct
investigations or proceedings under juvenile court law from
civil immunity if the individual commits specified acts with
malice.
1)Exempts Protection and Advocacy, Inc. (PAI), its employees,
and designated agents, from liability for an injury resulting
from an employee's or agent's act or omission, where the act
or omission was the result of the good faith exercise of
discretion vested in the employee or agent.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Currently, California social workers employed by counties or
other public entities are immune from civil liability when
carrying out discretionary acts. Since regional centers are
private organizations, their employees are not granted this
immunity. However, in 1991, Protection and Advocacy, Inc.
(PAI), a private non-profit organization with statutory
authority to carry out certain Lanterman Act mandates, was
given the statutory immunity offered to public employees,
establishing a precedent for granting non-public employees
immunity for carrying out public service activities authorized
in statute.
1)The California Association of State Hospital Parent Councils
for the Retarded (CASH/PCR) and a number of individuals, many
of whom are affiliated with the organization, have objected to
the bill on the grounds that it protects hundreds of group
homes and day care providers, along with regional centers and
their employees, from legal action when rape, abuse, neglect,
or wrongful death occur in a community-based setting.
However, since the time these objections were raised, the bill
has been amended to cover only regional center employees, not
the regional centers or any service vendors, and to provide
only the same protection that county social service workers
currently have. It is unclear whether the organization or
affiliated individuals retain their objections to the bill.
AB 2377
Page 3
1)According to the author, lawsuits filed against regional
centers increasingly include employees of the regional center
as individually named defendants. This places employees at
great personal financial risk and under extreme emotional
distress. The author argues that these lawsuits often aim to
punish an employee for carrying out the legislative mandates
of the Lanterman Act. This can produce a chilling effect on
an employee who, for instance, pursuant to the Lanterman Act,
is advocating for a developmentally disabled individual to
live to his or her fullest ability, which might include moving
from a state developmental center into a community-based
setting.
1)The Association of Regional Center Agencies (ARCA), a
co-sponsor of the bill, argues that staff of regional centers
should have the same protections afforded to those who work
for similar agencies, such as Child Protective Services.
According to ARCA, regional center service coordinators are
especially vulnerable to legal exposure because they often
make referrals and sign placement agreements with residential
care providers.
1)The Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) has been in
discussion with the sponsor about that organization's concerns
and have requested amendments stating that the statute does
not change, alter or affect the liability of regional centers,
including, but not limited to, the vicarious liability of a
regional center due to a negligent employee. They also
request that the bill be prospective so that immunity would
not apply to cases where litigation is in process.
AB 2377
Page 4
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of Regional Center Agencies (co-sponsor)
Inland Regional Center (co-sponsor)
Westside Regional Center
Opposition
California Association of State Hospital Parent Councils for the
Retarded
21 Individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Sally Brocksen/Sherry Novick / HUM. S.
/ (916) 319-2247