BILL ANALYSIS
AB 781
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 12, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 781 (Jeffries) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
SUBJECT : STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: BILINGUAL SERVICES AND
EMPLOYMENT
KEY ISSUES :
1)IS IT WISE, GIVEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT'S LEGAL
OBLIGATIONS TO MULTI-LINGUAL SKILLS IN OUR INCREASINGLY
DIVERSE STATE AND NATION, TO ENACT A NOVEL AND DIFFICULT LEGAL
STANDARD FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF BILINGUAL STAFF IN STATE AND
LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES?
2)MIGHT SUCH A STANDARD INADVERTENTLY DETER OR COMPLICATE
COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING CIVIL RIGHTS' EQUAL ACCESS LAWS?
3)IF THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT A PARTICULAR LOCAL ORDINANCE IN THE
CITY OF OAKLAND FAILS TO CAREFULLY BALANCE COMPETING RIGHTS
AND INTERESTS, IS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE REGARDING THE
NATURE AND EXTENT OF A STATEWIDE PROBLEM TO WARRANT STATEWIDE
LEGISLATIVE ACTION AT THIS TIME?
4)IF THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON WHICH TO BASE A
STATEWIDE LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE, WOULD IT NEVERTHELESS BE
USEFUL TO COLLECT FURTHER DATA TO INFORM ADVOCATES AND
POLICYMAKERS?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill apparently grows out of concern about implementation
of an ordinance in the City of Oakland regarding the provision
of public services to persons who are not yet proficient in
English. The author and sponsor, California NAACP, contend that
the Oakland ordinance fails to strike a healthy balance between
promoting equal access to government services and preserving
equal employment opportunities. The bill would shift the
balance by adopting a demanding, new and unprecedented standard
in this context by which all public sector employers in the
AB 781
Page 2
state would be required to defend their employment decisions
when they impact English speakers. The bill would not enact
this standard for those who speak another language, nor would
the bill lessen the continuing obligation of state and local
governments to comply with language access laws. Opponents
represent a coalition of some of the state's leading civil
rights and employment advocates who contend that the bill is
unnecessary, would hinder or conflict with existing equal access
obligations, and has not been shown to address a real problem.
No letters of support were received.
SUMMARY : Creates new and unprecedented legal obligations and
potential liability for all public sector employers that employ
persons who are bilingual. Specifically, this bill requires
that a city, county, or state governmental entity shall not
discriminate against an employee or an applicant for employment
on the basis of the ability of the employee or applicant to
speak a language other than English, unless an ability to speak
a language other than English constitutes a bona fide
occupational qualification.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides pursuant to the state Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA) that it shall be an unlawful employment practice,
unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification for
an employer, because of the race, color, national origin or
ancestry, of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the
person or to refuse to select the person for a training
program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the
person from employment or from a training program leading to
employment, or to discriminate against the person in
compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment. (Government Code section 12940.)
2)Provides pursuant to FEHA that it is an unlawful employment
practice for an employer to adopt or enforce a policy that
limits or prohibits the use of any language in any workplace,
unless both of the following conditions exist: (1) The
language restriction is justified by a business necessity; and
(2) the employer has notified its employees of the
circumstances and the time when the language restriction is
required to be observed and of the consequences for violating
the language restriction. For the purposes of this section,
"business necessity" means an overriding legitimate business
AB 781
Page 3
purpose such that the language restriction is necessary to the
safe and efficient operation of the business, that the
language restriction effectively fulfills the business purpose
it is supposed to serve, and there is no alternative practice
to the language restriction that would accomplish the business
purpose equally well with a lesser discriminatory impact.
(Government Code section 12951.)
3)Provides pursuant to the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 that
intentional discrimination on the basis of national origin may
be justified if the employer can prove that the discrimination
is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. (42
U.S.C. 2000(e).)
4)Provides, with respect to speak-English-only rules under
federal law, that a rule requiring employees to speak only
English at all times in the workplace is a burdensome term and
condition of employment. Prohibiting employees at all times
in the workplace from speaking their primary language or the
language they speak most comfortably, disadvantages an
individual's employment opportunities on the basis of national
origin. It may also create an atmosphere of inferiority,
isolation and intimidation based on national origin which
could result in a discriminatory working environment.
Therefore, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
presumes that such a rule violates title VII and will closely
scrutinize it. Further provides that when applied only at
certain times, an employer may have a rule requiring that
employees speak only in English at certain times where the
employer can show that the rule is justified by business
necessity. If an employer fails to effectively notify its
employees of the rule and makes an adverse employment decision
against an individual based on a violation of the rule, the
Commission will consider the employer's application of the
rule as evidence of discrimination on the basis of national
origin. (29 CFR 1606.7.)
5)Provides pursuant to federal law that no person shall on the
ground of race, color, or national origin (including language)
be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or
subjected to discrimination under any public or private
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance,
including conduct that has a disproportionate effect on
persons of limited English proficiency. (42 U.S.C. section
2000(d).) State law is to the same effect with respect to
AB 781
Page 4
governmental programs and activities, as well as private
programs that receive state funds. (Government Code section
11135.)
6)Declares pursuant to the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services
Act (DABSA), that the effective maintenance and development of
a free and democratic society depends on the right and ability
of its citizens and residents to communicate with their
government and the right and ability of the government to
communicate with them; that substantial numbers of persons who
live, work and pay taxes in this state are unable, either
because they do not speak or write English at all, or because
their primary language is other than English, effectively to
communicate with their government; that state and local agency
employees frequently are unable to communicate with persons
requiring their services because of this language barrier; and
that as a consequence, substantial numbers of persons
presently are being denied rights and benefits to which they
would otherwise be entitled. (Government Code section 7291.)
7)Requires every state agency directly involved in the
furnishing of information or the rendering of services to the
public whereby contact is made with a substantial number of
non-English-speaking people, to employ a sufficient number of
qualified bilingual persons in public contact positions to
ensure provision of information and services to the public, in
the language of the non-English-speaking person. (Government
Code section 7292.)
8)Provides that, "a sufficient number of qualified bilingual
persons in public contact positions" is the number required to
provide the same level of services to non-English-speaking
persons as is available to English-speaking persons seeking
these services. However, where the local office or facility
of the state employs the equivalent of 25 or fewer regular,
full-time employees, it shall constitute compliance with the
requirements of this chapter if a sufficient number of
qualified bilingual persons are employed in public contact
positions, or as qualified interpreters to assist those in
those positions, to provide the same level of services to
non-English-speaking persons as is available to
English-speaking persons seeking the services from the office
or facility. (Government Code section 7296.4.)
9)Provides that a "public contact position" is a position
AB 781
Page 5
determined by the agency to be one which emphasizes the
ability to meet, contact and deal with the public in the
performance of the agency's functions. (Government Code
section 7297.)
10)Likewise requries every local public agency serving a
substantial number of non-English-speaking people to employ a
sufficient number of qualified bilingual persons in public
contact positions or as interpreters to assist those in such
positions, to ensure provision of information and services in
the language of the non-English-speaking person. The
determination of what constitutes a substantial number of
non-English-speaking people and a sufficient number of
qualified bilingual persons shall be made by the local agency.
(Government Code Section 7293.)
11)Provides that an employee of a state or local agency may not
be dismissed to carry out the purposes of the DABSA and that
state and local public agencies need only implement the Act by
filling employee public contact positions made vacant by
retirement or normal attrition. (Government Code Section
7294.)
12)Provides that the DABSA shall be implemented to the extent
that local, state or federal funds are available, and to the
extent permissible under federal law and the provisions of
civil service law governing the state and local agencies.
(Government Code section 7299.)
COMMENTS : The author describes the need for the bill as
follows:
The City of Oakland adopted a bilingual hiring requirement
(Ordinance # 12324, May 2001) for "Public Contact
Positions" when there are at least 10,000 limited English
speaking City residents who speak a shared language other
than English.
The problem with the Oakland ordinance, and California law,
is three-fold: 1) it does not provide specific methodology
guidance for bilingual hiring when more than one shared
language population is no less than 10,000, 2) it pits
different ethnic groups against each other, and 3) it
reduces employment opportunities for residents who only
speak English.
AB 781
Page 6
Federal and state policy both express a commitment to
improving the accessibility of government services to
eligible LEP persons, however, California must strike a
healthy balance in promoting equal access to government
services, and preserving equal employment opportunities.
AB 781 strikes this balance by providing that city, county,
or state governmental entities shall not discriminate
against an employee or an applicant for employment on the
basis of the ability of the employee or applicant to speak
a language other than English, unless an ability to speak a
language other than English constitutes a bona fide
occupational qualification.
The author states, "Recognizing the importance and sensitivity
of equal access to government services, this bill is sponsored
by the California State NAACP to foster strategies, programs,
and policies that promote intercultural understanding, dialogue
and solutions in our multicultural state. The author and the
California NAACP hope to effect statutory changes relating to
bilingual hiring requirements in local and state government, and
constructively address the implications for employment
discrimination against qualified job applicants."
Language Controversy Related to Changing Demographics.
California entered the Union as a state with a tradition of
multiple languages, including a large number of Spanish-speaking
citizens and many Chinese laborers. Over the past 150-plus
years, the state's demographics and language usage have
undergone periodic changes, with English becoming the dominant
language for much of that period. Most recently, of course, a
significant number of immigrants have arrived speaking Spanish
or one or more of many Asian languages. Typically new arrivals
take some time to learn English, although children usually learn
quickly and may even lose the language of their parents. Some
have reacted to the presence of these new residents and their
languages with dismay or alarm, attempting to ban store signs
that are not in English, prohibit the use of non-English
languages in the workplace or in places of public accommodation,
or ban bilingual education. On the other hand, state and
federal law obligate to ensure that our democratic government
and the services it provides are equally accessible to all
residents. Of course, the public sector, at least since the
civil rights era, has been a leader in the recognition of
AB 781
Page 7
non-discrimination rights and an important source of
fairly-compensated and professional employment, allowing entry
and expansion of the middle class for many non-whites.
Background Regarding Oakland Ordinance That Apparently Sparked
This Bill. The Committee is advised that this bill was prompted
by Resolution 21 adopted by delegates to the California NAACP
State Conference in October, 2008, which stated:
HIRING: BILINGUAL HIRING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland recently passed an ordinance
that requires an applicant to be bilingual as a condition
of employment, and
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland is located in the State of
California in the United States of America, a country where
English is the official language, and
WHEREAS, requiring candidates for employment to be fluent
in a language other than English is discriminatory and
represents yet another means of discrimination in America,
and
BE IT RESOLVED, the California State NAACP seek to remedy
this injustice through legislation and public dialogue.
According to a letter provided by the City of Oakland, "On May
8, 2001, the City of Oakland became the first city in the nation
to pass an Equal Access to Service ordinance with the purpose of
removing language barriers for limited English speakers
attempting to access City services. City of Oakland departments
are required to provide language access for residents who are
limited English speaking through the availability of bilingual
staff and translated written outreach materials."
A legal opinion from the Oakland City Attorney, dated March 11,
2008, states:
The Equal Access Ordinance, O.M.C. 2.30, provides
individuals with limited English proficiency access to
local government services. The Ordinance requires the City
to hire "a sufficient number of bilingual employees in
public contact positions so as to adequately serve members
of the substantial number of limited-English-speaking
AB 781
Page 8
persons group(s) in the City." The Ordinance vests
discretion in the City Manager to determine the adequacy of
service to members of the group(s). The Ordinance makes no
reference to race or national origin. It is fully
consistent with California law, the Dyrnally-Alatorre
Bilingual Services Act, also enacted to provide individuals
with limited English proficiency access to state and local
government services. Since passage of the Equal Access
Ordinance questions have been raised about how the City can
fulfill the Ordinance's mandate: ensuring that the City
provides "equal access" to its services, given the growing
linguistic diversity of the City's population.
Despite the Equal Access Ordinance (EAO), the City of Oakland
was sued in September, 2008 by four community groups - Family
Bridges, Inc., Organization of Chinese Americans-East Bay
Chapter, The Spanish Speaking Unity Council, and California
ACORN, represented by Public Advocates and private counsel - for
allegedly failing to fulfill its obligations under the EAO. The
lawsuit asserts that the EAO was adopted by the City after
finding that "substantial numbers of persons who live work, and
pay taxes in Oakland are unable to communicate effectively in
English because their primary language is not English" and that
"[i]t is of paramount importance that all residents regardless
of their proficiency in English have access to City Programs and
services." The suit alleges that the EAO requires translation
of key documents and sufficient bilingual staff available in
public contact positions for languages reaching a 10,000
threshold, currently including Spanish and Chinese. Bilingual
staff are required to be hired only as position vacancies occur.
In addition, the City Administrator, departments and agencies
must develop and submit annual compliance plans that collect
critical data and provide an assessment of the data in 16 key
areas. The lawsuit further alleges that the City of Oakland has
experienced tremendous growth in its immigrant residents who
speak limited or no English such that the population of limited
English speakers is substantial, with over 41% of Oakland's
population of almost 350,000 speaking a language other than
English. According to the suit, the City has failed to comply
with its mandatory obligations in that it has provided only
three incomplete plans and has failed to provide four plans
since the EAO was adopted in 2001.
The Proposed Standard By Which Bilingual Employment Decisions
Must Be Justified Under This Bill - Bona Fide Occupational
AB 781
Page 9
Qualification - Is The Most Difficult Standard In Employment
Law. This bill provides that no city, county, or state
governmental entity shall discriminate against an employee or an
applicant for employment on the basis of the ability to speak a
language other than English, unless that ability constitutes a
bona fide occupational qualification.
This standard - bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) - is
borrowed from state and federal employment discrimination
statutes, which provide that an employer who adopts a policy
that on its face expresses an otherwise unlawful discriminatory
preference for a particular national origin group may attempt to
excuse that discrimination if it can prove an affirmative
defense and also show that there are no less discriminatory
alternatives available. Specifically "Where an employer or
other covered entity has a practice which on its face excludes
an entire group of individuals on a basis enumerated in the
[FEHA] (e.g., all women or all individuals with lower back
defects), the employer or other covered entity must prove that
the practice is justified because all or substantially all of
the excluded individuals are unable to safely and efficiently
perform the job in question and because the essence of the
business operation would otherwise be undermined." (2 CCR
section 7286.7.)
The BFOQ defense is extremely narrow and has been strictly
construed by the courts.
"[T]he principle of nondiscrimination requires that in order to
rely on the bona fide occupational qualification exception an
employer has the burden of proving that he had reasonable cause
to believe, that is, a factual basis for believing, that all or
substantially all women would be unable to perform safely and
efficiently the duties of the job involved. Even if an employer
can demonstrate that certain jobs require members of one sex,
the employer must also 'bear the burden of proving that because
of the nature of the operation of the business they could not
rearrange job responsibilities' in order to reduce the BFOQ
necessity." (Bohemian Club v. Fair Employment & Housing Comm.,
187 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1986)(citations omitted.) "The wording of
the BFOQ defense contains several terms of restriction that
indicate that the exception reaches only special situations.
The statute thus limits the situations in which discrimination
is permissible to 'certain instances' where ? discrimination is
'reasonably necessary' to the 'normal operation' of the
'particular' business. Each one of these terms - certain,
AB 781
Page 10
normal, particular - prevents the use of general subjective
standards and favors an objective, verifiable requirement. But
the most telling term is 'occupational;' this indicates that
these objective, verifiable requirements must concern
job-related skills and aptitudes." (Int'l Union v. Johnson
Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991).)
Because it warrants intentional discrimination against a
protected national origin group, the BFOQ standard is different
from - and more demanding than - the "business necessity"
defense that covers the sort of unintentional discrimination
that may arise when an employer adopts a rule that is not
discriminatory on its face but has a disparate impact against a
protected group. "Where an employer or other covered entity has
a facially neutral practice which has an adverse impact (i.e.,
is discriminatory in effect), the employer or other covered
entity must prove that there exists an overriding legitimate
business purpose such that the practice is necessary to the safe
and efficient operation of the business and that the challenged
practice effectively fulfills the business purpose it is
supposed to serve." (2 CCR section 7286.7; See also Int'l Union
v. Johnson Controls, supra (the business necessity standard is
more lenient for the employer than the statutory BFOQ defense).)
Is The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification Standard Appropriate
For Bilingual Employment Decisions ? The Committee has not been
advised of any state or local employment policy that expresses a
preference for a specific national origin group - e.g., persons
of Mexican or Chinese national origin - of the sort that would
trigger a traditional BFOQ analysis as that principle has thus
far been applied in employment law. The Oakland EAO, for
example, relates to persons who have bilingual language
abilities, a skill that includes many persons of African
American, Anglo and other descent. There is evident concern on
both sides of the issue that the Oakland EAO has been either not
sufficiently or too aggressively enforced, but the Committee has
not been presented with any evidence regarding the actual impact
of the EAO in Oakland, and equally important in other state and
local laws (due to the statewide impact of the bill) on the
employment of persons on the basis of race or national origin.
If it is believed that this BFOQ standard nevertheless reflects
the appropriate policy choice, it must be noted that the bill
appears to work in only one direction - it imposes the BFOQ
standard only for employment decisions affecting monolingual
AB 781
Page 11
English speakers, not for those who speak another language, have
difficulty with English, or speak with an accent. By contrast,
English-only rules and other policies that discriminate against
persons who speak a language other than English, need be
justified only on the basis of the "business necessity" defense.
(Government Code section 12951; 29 CFR 1606.7)
Finally, if the Committee were to conclude that the bill strikes
the appropriate balance between various rights and interests, it
would then seem appropriate to inquire whether the standard the
bill proposes for public employment should apply equally to
private employment. There are certainly numerous examples of
employment obligations that have originated in public employment
and were later expanded to include private business. Indeed,
because governmental entities (as discussed below) have special
obligations, that private employers do not have, to make public
services fully accessible to residents without regard to
language, compliance with the bill's obligations may well be
more difficult for public employers than for those in the
private sector.
Might Such A Standard Inadvertently Deter Or Complicate
Compliance With Existing Civil Rights' Equal Access Laws? State
and local governmental entities are obligated under state and
federal anti-discrimination laws to make public services equally
accessible to language minorities. Federal law provides that no
person shall on the ground of race, color, or national origin
(including language) be excluded from participation in, denied
the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any public
or private program or activity receiving federal financial
assistance, including conduct that has a disproportionate effect
on persons of limited English proficiency. (42 U.S.C. section
2000(d).) State law is to the same effect with respect to
governmental programs and activities, as well as private
programs that receive state funds. (Government Code section
11135.) Because state and local governments have these unique
obligations, they are subject to liability if they fail to
comply. It is not clear whether and to what extent this bill
might potentially complicate those compliance efforts.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Committee received the following
letter signed by Ronald M. Dellums:
On behalf of the City of Oakland, I write to express my
strong opposition to AB 781 which would prohibit a city,
AB 781
Page 12
county, or state governmental entity from hiring an
employee or an applicant for employment with, bilingual
capabilities to properly and equally serve our very diverse
Oakland citizenry.
There are over 125 languages and dialects spoken in
Oakland, The City of Oakland has made it a priority to
establish a form of government that is truly inclusive of
all its residents and is committed to the delivery of
effective, courteous and responsive services. A
substantial number of persons who live and work in Oakland
are unable to communicate effectively in English because
their primary language is not English. It is of paramount
importance that all residents regardless of their ability
or proficiencies in English have access to City programs,
support, and services.
On May 8, 2001, the City of Oakland became the first city
in the nation to pass an Equal Access to Service ordinance
with the purpose of removing language barriers for limited
English speakers attempting to access City services. City
of Oakland departments are required to provide language
access for residents who are limited English speaking
through the availability of bilingual staff and translated
written outreach materials.
Additionally, California Government Code Section 7290, also
known as the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act,
requires that every local public agency serving a
substantial number of non-English speaking people, employ a
sufficient number of qualified bilingual persons in public
contact positions which is precisely the intent of
Oakland's Equal Access Ordinance.
Your bill, if passed, would require Oakland to repeal our
successful Equal Access to Service program and will
negatively impact our residents by preventing them from
accessing essential city services. If you have any
questions, or I can be of assistance in any way, please
feel free, to contact me.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Asian Americans for Civil
Rights and Equality and a coalition of civil rights groups has
also submitted written opposition, arguing as follows:
AB 781
Page 13
To the extent this bill is intended to prevent national
origin or race discrimination, it is unnecessary. Existing
federal and California law prohibit discrimination based on
race and national origin and bar unnecessary language
requirements that have a disparate impact based on national
origin. See, e.g. Cal. Gov. Code 12940 ("It shall be an
unlawful employment practice, unless based on a bona fide
occupational qualification, . . . [f]or an employer,
because of the . . . national origin . . . of any person,
to refuse to hire or employ the person . . .") (emphasis
added). To the extent this bill is intended to prevent
national origin or race discrimination, it is unnecessary.
The Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act, Gov't Code
7290 et seq., was important legislation for increasing
access to necessary government services for limited English
speakers and the ACLU supported its passage.
Moreover, federal law, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, requires that state and local
agencies receiving federal aid open their services to
individuals limited in English proficiency and provide them
with meaningful access to their programs. (See, e.g., Dep't
of Justice Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance
Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National
Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient
Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41455 (June 18, 2002)). To comply
with these federal regulations, localities have employed
bilingual individuals. Consequently, when health, housing
or education concerns arise, a bilingual employee may
provide the necessary interpretation with a minimal cost to
the locality. A law preventing the hiring of bilingual
employees for this purpose may conflict with federal law
and expose localities to liability under federal law.
Supporters of the bill claim that this legislation is
necessary to prevent discrimination. We share the
supporters' interest in preventing discrimination. However,
our requests for evidence of discriminatory impact have
gone unmet. Given the importance of expanding access to
critical government services by limited English speakers
and the fact that multilingual abilities do not necessarily
track race or national origin, we urge you to begin by
studying the impact of language access requirements on
hiring with respect to national origin and race
AB 781
Page 14
discrimination. If such an impact is evident, we will be
happy to work with you on appropriate solutions. However,
without such evidence, it is inappropriate to prohibit
localities from stating a hiring preference for an acquired
skill--bilingual ability--if the skill would benefit the
public by expanding access to government services.
Public Advocates adds:
Given the significant limited English proficient (LEP)
community in California, the need for government entities
to serve LEP residents is undeniable. This bill would
hamper the government from being responsive to the
legitimate needs of the populations they are charged to
serve and thus would be a disservice to all Californians.
Current local ordinances, such as the Oakland Equal Access
Ordinance were carefully drafted to balance the needs of
all communities. Bilingual staff are required to be hired
only for a subset of vacant positions. When there is a
demonstrated need for language ability in "public contact
positions" to equally serve LEPs-and only those LEPs whose
language population reaches a 10,000 persons threshold-then
there is a requirement to hire qualified bilingual staff.
This type of Ordinance, which has been tailored to meet the
legitimate needs of the community, is necessary to maintain
a government that offers safety, health, and civic
participation services to all its residents.
The California Labor Federation also opposes the bill, arguing:
This bill seeks to address a problem that simply does not
exist. Existing state and federal law prohibit
discrimination based on race and national origin and bar
unnecessary language requirements that have a disparate
impact based on national origin. In a multicultural state,
being bilingual is a helpful skill for almost any position.
There is nothing inherently discriminatory about
considering one's language skills along with all other
relevant qualifications and experience.
It is even more important that state and local government
have employees who can speak to the communities they serve.
The Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act, Gov't Code
7290 et seq., specifically provides that every state and
AB 781
Page 15
local agency serving a substantial number of
non-English-speaking people "shall employ a sufficient
number of qualified bilingual persons in public contact
positions to ensure provision of information and services
to the public, in the language of the non English-speaking
person." AB 781 would directly undermine the
Dymally-Alatorre Act and make it impossible for the state
or local agencies to comply.
Providing language access is not simply about fairness or
inclusivity. It is essential to promoting public health,
protecting public safety, and enforcing state law. AB 781
would make it much harder to hire bilingual police officers
who are able to protect immigrant women facing domestic
violence, to hire bilingual public health nurses to educate
parents about the risks of swine flu, and to hire bilingual
labor law enforcement agents to ensure that farmworkers are
getting the rest and water they need in the fields.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California NAACP
Opposition
ACLU
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
California Professional Firefighters
Chinese for Affirmative Action
California Federation of Interpreters
California Labor Federation
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
City of Oakland
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
Latino Issues Forum
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Public Advocates
Unity Council
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334