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 ****