BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1505|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1505
Author: Yee (D)
Amended: 8/5/08
Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 65-13, 8/11/08 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Whistleblower protection
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill extends the protections of the
California Whistleblower Protection Act to former state
employees, and adds reasonable attorneys fees to the relief
one may recover under the Act.
Assembly Amendments delete the prior content of the bill,
which dealt with the Board of Behavioral Sciences, and
added the current language.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Provides, under the California Whistleblower Protection
Act (Act), a process by which a state employee may file a
written complaint alleging adverse employment actions
such as retaliation, reprisal threats, or coercion, with
CONTINUED
SB 1505
Page
2
a supervisor or manager and with the State Personnel
Board (Board). The Act requires the Board to initiate an
investigation or a proceeding within 10 working days of
submission of a written complaint, and to complete
findings of the investigation or hearing within 60
working days thereafter.
2.Makes a person who intentionally engages in acts of
reprisal or retaliation in violation of the Act subject
to a fine of up to $10,000 and up to a year in county
jail, and if that person is a civil service employee,
subjects that person to discipline by adverse action. A
person injured by such acts may bring an action for
damages only after filing a complaint with the Board and
the Board issued, or failed to issue, findings of its
hearings or investigation.
3.Provides that if the executive officer of the Board finds
that the supervisor, manager retaliated against the
complainant for engaging in protected whistleblower
activities, the supervisor or manager may request a
hearing before the Board regarding the findings of the
executive officer. Provides that the executive officer
shall complete findings of the hearing or investigation
within 60 working days.
4.Provides the Board may order any appropriate relief,
including, but not limited to, reinstatement, backpay,
restoration of lost service credit, if appropriate,
compensatory damages for violations of the Act.
5.Provides that whenever the Board determines that a
manager, supervisor or employee, who is not named a party
to the retaliation complaint, may have engaged in any act
prohibited by the Act, and notifies the manager's,
supervisor's or employee's appointing power of that fact,
within four months, the appointing power shall either
serve notice of the adverse action or set forth its
reasons for not taking adverse action within 60 days
after receiving the notification.
This bill:
1.Makes findings and declarations that:
SB 1505
Page
3
A. It is the public policy of this state to protect
and safeguard the right to report waste, fraud, abuse
of authority without fear of retribution; and,
B. Practice of retaliating against others because of
their protected disclosure of improper governmental
activities is against public policy.
2.Adds former state employees who would have been covered
by the Act during their employment to the list of
employees who are covered by the Act.
3.Adds reasonable attorney's fees and costs for successful
prosecution of a retaliation complaint before the State
Personnel Board (SPB) to the relief that SPB may order
for violation of the Act.
4.Extends the time period by which an appointing power
shall serve notice of an adverse action to a manager,
supervisor or employee who violated the Act from 60 days
to four months.
5.Codifies existing regulations which provide that in all
whistleblower cases, the administrative law judge shall
make any orders that may appear just in order to prevent
any named party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put
to unnecessary expense, and may make other orders as the
interests of justice may require during the
administrative hearing.
6.Makes technical and clarifying amendments.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1.The net impact of authorizing the SPB to award attorney's
fees should be potentially moderate savings in state
litigation costs. This is because, according to SPB
staff, if SPB finds that a plaintiff was a victim of
retaliatory action under the Act, that person typically
will proceed to file an action in court, where upon
SB 1505
Page
4
receiving a successful outcome (as is typical following
SPB's finding), the plaintiff is awarded attorney's fees
and may receive punitive damages. With SPB specifically
authorized to award attorney's fees under this bill, it
is less likely that a successful plaintiff will proceed
to file an action with the court.
2.Moderate administrative costs savings to SPB from
eliminating the notice of findings process and
consolidating the administrative proceeding into one
hearing limited to 10 days. SPB indicates that about 50
to 60 complaints are filed under the Act each year.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/13/08)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
California Animal Association
California Association of Professional Scientists
California Faculty Association
California Psychiatric Association
California State Employees Association
Californians Aware
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Government Accountability Project
SEIU Local 1000
State Personnel Board
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
while California always has had one of the nation's more
modern state whistleblower statutes, critical flaws have
blocked it from achieving its promise of justice for
employees who "commit the truth" in challenges to abuses of
power that betray the public trust. Supporters, including
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, state that this bill is necessary to provide
more protections to former employees and ensure timely
review of complaints filed under the Act.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Aghazarian, Arambula, Beall, Benoit, Berg,
Berryhill, Brownley, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeSaulnier, DeVore,
SB 1505
Page
5
Duvall, Dymally, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fuentes, Fuller,
Furutani, Galgiani, Garcia, Garrick, Hancock, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Horton, Houston, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Karnette, Krekorian, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu,
Ma, Mendoza, Mullin, Nava, Niello, Nunez, Parra, Plescia,
Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Smyth,
Solorio, Spitzer, Strickland, Swanson, Torrico, Tran,
Wolk, Bass
NOES: Anderson, Blakeslee, Cook, Emmerson, Gaines, Huff,
Keene, La Malfa, Maze, Nakanishi, Silva, Villines,
Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Sharon Runner, Soto
JJA:nl 8/13/08 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****