BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 242|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 242
Author: Yee (D)
Amended: 7/14/09
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 3/31/09
AYES: Corbett, Florez, Leno
NOES: Harman, Walters
SENATE FLOOR : 21-15, 4/16/09
AYES: Alquist, Corbett, Correa, DeSaulnier, Ducheny,
Florez, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod,
Oropeza, Padilla, Pavley, Romero, Simitian, Steinberg,
Wiggins, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Benoit, Cogdill, Cox, Denham,
Dutton, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Maldonado, Runner,
Strickland, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cedillo, Hancock, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-27, 8/20/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Civil rights: language restrictions
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill makes it a violation of the Unruh
Civil Rights Act to adopt or enforce a policy that
requires, limits, or prohibits the use of any language in a
business establishment, unless the language is justified by
a business necessity and notification has been provided of
CONTINUED
SB 242
Page
2
the circumstances and the time when the language
restriction is required to be observed, and of the
consequences for its violation.
Assembly Amendments (1) added policies that "require" the
use of any language, (2) provided that the prohibition and
defenses contained in this bill are in addition to any
other provisions of law, and (3) added provisions
specifying that the provisions do not apply to policies or
rules regarding the employment relationship between a
business establishment and its employees.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act,
generally prohibits business establishments from
discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical
condition, and provides civil remedies for violations of
its provisions.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment Housing Act
(FEHA), provides that it is an unlawful employment practice
for an employer to adopt or enforce a policy that prohibits
the use of any language in the workplace, except if that
policy is justified by business necessity and prescribed
notice of the policy and consequences for violation of the
policy is given to employees.
This bill makes it a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights
Act to adopt or enforce a policy that requires, limits, or
prohibits the use of any language in or with a business
establishment, unless the language restriction or
requirement is justified by a business necessity and
notification has been provided of the circumstances and the
time when the language restriction is required to be
observed, and of the consequences for its violation.
This bill defines "business necessity" as an overriding
legitimate business purpose for which all of the following
are true: (1) the language restriction or requirement is
necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the
business, (2) the language restriction or requirement
effectively fulfills the business purpose it is supposed to
serve, and (3) an alternative practice to the language
restriction or requirement that would accomplish the
SB 242
Page
3
business purpose equally well with a lesser discriminatory
impact does not exist. This definition of "business
necessity" is consistent with the one codified in the FEHA.
This bill provides for an award of damages, and attorney's
fees as may be determined by the court, for a violation of
its provisions.
This bill provides that nothing in this bill shall be
construed to impose a duty on any business establishment to
provide customer service in a particular language unless
that duty is otherwise required by law. The prohibitions
and defenses in this bill are in addition to any other
prohibitions and defenses under any other section or other
law, and the rights and remedies provided by this bill may
be enforced independently of any other rights or remedies.
This bill provides that nothing in this bill shall be
construed to alter, limit, or negate an application of any
other remedies or rights provided under the law.
This bill provides that the provisions of the bill do not
apply to policies or rules regarding the employment
relationship between a business establishment and its
employees.
Background
In 2008, the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA)
announced a proposed policy that would have required
players on the tour to be proficient in English by the end
of 2009 and pass an oral evaluation of their English skills
or face a membership suspension. The LPGA asserted that it
was important for players to be able to interact with the
American media and event sponsors even though many of the
tour's sponsors are international companies, and a number
of the tournaments do not take place in the United States.
Notably, no other professional sports team in the United
States has a similar requirement. The LPGA ultimately
rescinded the proposal after the author of this bill, and
other lawmakers, along with numerous civil rights
organizations, raised objections to the policy.
Various statutes, such as FEHA and the Unruh Civil Rights
SB 242
Page
4
Act, prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public
accommodation, and services provided by business
establishments on the basis of specified personal
characteristics such as sex, race, color, national origin,
religion, and disability. Over time, these statutes
evolved to include other characteristics such as medical
condition and marital status and to generally reflect the
state's public policy against discrimination in all forms.
Although FEHA currently contains provisions that prohibit
employers from enacting policies that restrict the use of
any language among their employees, there is nothing in
current law that generally prohibits business
establishments to place such restrictions on patrons or, in
the case of the LPGA tour, participants/competitors. This
bill seeks to further enhance protections in the Unruh
Civil Rights Act in order to prevent the implementation of
language restriction policies in the future.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/21/09)
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Anti-Defamation League
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
Asian Americans for Community Involvement
Associated Students, University of California, Davis
California Federation of Teachers
California Nurses Association
California Teachers Association
EDITORIAL - Bay Area News Group Newspapers
EDITORIAL - Korea Daily
Equality California
FilAm Star
Japanese American Citizens League (Pacific Region)
Korean American Bar Association
Korean American Coalition - Los Angeles
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP)
SB 242
Page
5
San Francisco Japanese American Citizens League
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/21/09)
Association of California Insurance Companies
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Financial Services Association
California Grocers Association
California Independent Grocers Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Resource Family Impact
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce
Lawyers Against Lawsuit Abuse
Lumber Association of California and Nevada
Personal Insurance Federation of California
Pro English
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states:
"While speaking one's native language is protected in
cases of employment and housing under state law, such
protections are not provided under the state's civil
rights act, which prohibits discrimination within
business establishments.
"Unless English is justified by a business necessity, no
one should be discriminated against simply for speaking
their language. SB 242 will rightfully add language to
the list of protected classes within California's civil
rights act."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez,
Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A. Perez, V.
SB 242
Page
6
Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,
Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torrico, Yamada,
Bass
NOES: Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee,
Conway, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Fletcher, Fuller,
Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries,
Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Silva,
Smyth, Audra Strickland, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Adams, Galgiani, Torres, Tran, Vacancy
RJG:mw 8/24/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****