BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1252
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 1252 (Corbett) - As Amended: May 19, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 22-8
SUBJECT : HOUSING DISCRIMINATION: TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING
REVISIONS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD CERTAIN HOUSING DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS OF
THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT BE CLARIFIED AND CONFORMED
TO FEDERAL LAW?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill is sponsored by the Department of Fair Employment and
Housing (DFEH) to make several technical revisions to the Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) pertaining to housing
discrimination. Specifically, this bill would make technical
revisions to consistently include "source of income" as a
characteristic protected from housing discrimination; clarify
that admission preferences based on age, imposed in connection
with a federally-approved housing program, do not constitute age
discrimination in housing; and amend FEHA's civil penalty caps
to conform to those under federal law. There is no substantive
opposition, although two landlord groups seek an amendment that
would codify an uncodified statement of legislative intent.
SUMMARY : Makes miscellaneous technical and conforming changes
to housing discrimination law. Specifically, this bill :
1)Clarifies that admission preferences based on age, imposed in
connection with a federally-approved housing program, do not
constitute age discrimination in housing.
2)Makes technical revisions to cross reference "source of
income" where it already is among the list of classes
protected for the purpose of clarity and consistency.
3)Increases the maximum civil penalties that may be assessed for
a violation of the FEHA to $16,000, $37,500, and $65,000 for a
SB 1252
Page 2
person's first, second, and third violations, respectively.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act, declares it
to be against public policy to discriminate on the grounds of
race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital
status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, or
disability; and that every person has a civil right to be
given the opportunity to seek, obtain, or hold employment and
housing without facing discrimination based on these protected
classes. (Gov. Code Secs. 12920, 12921.)
2)Declares it unlawful for any housing accommodation owner to
inquire about; make known any preference or limitation as to;
discriminate; or harass a person based on the person's race,
color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,
national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income,
or disability. (Gov. Code Sec. 12955.)
3)Provides under the FEHA that an owner may be subject to a
civil penalty of up to $10,000 for his or her first violation
of the FEHA. If it is the offender's second violation within
five years, a civil penalty may be assessed of up to $25,000.
If it is the offender's third violation within seven years, a
civil penalty may be assessed of up to $50,000. (Gov. Code
Sec. 12987.)
4)Provides under federal law that an administrative law judge
may impose a civil penalty of up to $16,000 for a violation of
a Fair Housing Act. If it is the offender's second violation
within five years, a civil penalty may be assessed of up
$37,500. If the offender has violated the Fair Housing Act
three or more times within seven years, a civil penalty may be
assessed of up to $65,000. (24 C.F.R. 180.671.)
COMMENTS : This bill is sponsored by the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH), the state agency responsible for
enforcing the FEHA and other civil rights laws. The FEHA
prohibits employment and housing discrimination based on the
protected classes of race, color, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial
status, source of income, or disability. The FEHA further
provides that it is a civil right to be able to pursue and
maintain housing or employment without facing discrimination.
SB 1252
Page 3
According to a work-sharing agreement between the DFEH and the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the FEHA
must remain substantially similar to the Fair Housing Amendments
Act (FHAA) in order for the DFEH to receive complaint referrals
and funding from HUD. According to the DFEH, for the current
contract period the DFEH anticipates receiving over $3 million
dollars from HUD, which it believes could be at risk if this
bill is not enacted.
Consistent References To "Source Of Income" Among The List Of
Protected Classes. The FEHA declares that it is unlawful to
discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation,
marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status,
source of income, and disability.
In 1999, housing discrimination on the basis of a person's
"source of income" was added to the statute. However, the list
of protected characteristics in related FEHA housing provisions
was not similarly amended. SB 1252 would address that
inconsistency by adding "source of income" to the list of
protected classes in Government Code Sections 12920, 12921 and
12955.8. This change is technical and non-substantive in
nature, and the author has added intent language to underscore
that point. Nevertheless, two groups have filed opposition
seeking to have that intent language codified, as discussed
below.
Civil Penalties Cap For Violations Of Housing Discrimination
Conformed To Federal Law To Preserve Consistency And Eligibility
For Federal Funds. State law provides that if a person is found
to have engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices, a civil
penalty may be assessed. Currently, the FEHA states that a
civil penalty of up to $10,000 may be assessed against a
violator for a first time offense. If it is the second
violation in five years, a maximum civil penalty may be imposed
of $25,000. If it is the third violation in seven years, a
maximum civil penalty of $50,000 may be imposed. Similar caps
under federal law have recently increased to $16,000, $37,500,
and $65,000, for a person's first, second, and third violations,
respectively. (24 C.F.R. Sec. 180.671.) This bill would keep
the FEHA substantially equal to the FHAA by conforming the FEHA
caps to federal law.
Reconciling Differences Between Federal Law And State Law
SB 1252
Page 4
Regarding Housing Selection Preferences With Respect To Age.
The FEHA prohibits housing discrimination based on age, with the
exception of housing accommodations specifically designed for
senior citizens. However, FHAA does not expressly prohibit age
discrimination in housing. Instead, the FHAA prohibits the
refusal to sell or rent "?a dwelling to any person because of
race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national
origin." (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3604.) This discrepancy becomes
problematic because some federal housing programs have renter
eligibility criteria requiring that at least one member of the
household be 62 years old or older. Other members of the
household may be any age, and the provider may not refuse to
rent to a family with minor children, as long as one household
member is at least 62. This type of requirement violates
California law, which only provides an exemption for senior
housing accommodations to make housing selections based on a
minimum age requirement. Therefore, a failure to comply with
the federal regulation will result in a loss of funding for
housing providers, but compliance with the federal regulation
will result in violation of state law and a potential DFEH
complaint.
SB 1252 would clarify that admission preferences based on age,
imposed in connection with a federally-approved housing program,
do not constitute age discrimination in housing. This
clarification would allow for both FHAA and FEHA to operate
without conflict.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Two landlord groups seek a cosmetic
change in the bill that they believe would further clarify the
purpose of the bill. They would like the author to codify the
currently uncodified statement of intent in the bill regarding
the addition of the "source of income" to the non-substantive
sections from which it was inadvertently omitted. This proposed
amendment would itself be non-substantive.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
Apartment Association California Southern Cities
SB 1252
Page 5
Orange County Apartment Association
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334