BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1229
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1229 (Pavley)
As Amended August 24, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :37-0
JUDICIARY 7-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Atkins, Dickinson, | | |
| |Huber, Monning, | | |
| |Wieckowski, Chesbro | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Jones | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits landlords from imposing conditions on
occupancy of real property that might cause an animal that is
allowed on the premises to be devocalized or declawed.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "devocalizing" to mean performing, procuring, or
arranging for any surgical procedure, such as a vocal
cordectomy, to remove an animal's vocal chords or to prevent
the normal function of an animal's vocal chords.
2)Defines "declawing" to mean performing, procuring, or
arranging for any procedure, such as an onychectomy,
tendonectomy, or phalangectomy, to remove or to prevent the
normal function of an animal's claw or claws.
3)Prohibits a person or corporation that occupies, owns,
manages, or provides services in connection with any real
property, and that allows an animal on the premises, from
doing any of the following:
a) Advertise, through any means, the availability of real
property for occupancy in a manner designed to discourage
application for occupancy of that real property because the
applicant's animal has not been devocalized or declawed;
b) Refuse to allow the occupancy of any real property,
SB 1229
Page 2
refuse to negotiate the occupancy of any real property, or
otherwise make unavailable or deny to any other person the
occupancy of any real property because of that person's
refusal to devocalize or declaw any animal; and,
c) Require any tenant or occupant of real property to
devocalize or declaw any animal allowed on the premises.
4)Permits a city or district attorney or other law enforcement
prosecutorial entity to enforce these provisions and sue for
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or imposition of
specified civil penalties, to be paid to the entity that is
entitled to bring an action under this act.
5)Makes legislative findings and declarations.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to prohibit landlords and other
persons who own or manage real property from imposing conditions
on occupancy of the property that might cause an animal that is
allowed on the premises to be devocalized or declawed. Under
this bill, landlords and property owners are broadly prohibited
from taking certain actions that might put people in the
untenable position of having to choose between their housing
accommodations or having their pet cat or dog undergo a
declawing or devocalization procedure.
Onychectomy ("declawing") is an operation to remove an animal's
claws by amputating the end bones of the animal's toes. The
operation is most commonly done to household cats, but on
occasion is done to other animals. Except where medically
necessary, the practice of declawing has been prohibited in
other countries, including Australia, Brazil, Germany,
Switzerland, Austria, and the United Kingdom.
While declawing generally applies to cats, devocalizing (also
known as "debarking") most commonly applies to dogs and is an
operation to remove tissue from the animal's vocal cords so as
to permanently reduce the volume of its vocalizations. The
practice is illegal in New Jersey and Massachusetts.
According to the author, this practice should be prohibited
because debarking and declawing "are permanent procedures and
such procedures run counter to the temporary nature of rental
SB 1229
Page 3
occupancy." In addition, the Humane Society Veterinary Medical
Association (HSVMA), a co-sponsor of this bill, contends that
this bill is needed to "ensure that important medical decisions
about companion animals are not made in the context of rental
agreements but rather in consultation with veterinary medical
professionals and focused on the animals' health."
This bill only applies when the landlord or owner already allows
an animal to be on the premises, thereafter restricting
specified conduct in those cases that could condition occupancy
on whether an animal is declawed or devocalized. In other
words, this bill does not apply to any situation where the party
making the property available for occupancy specifically forbids
an animal on the premises. This bill does not infringe upon any
landlord's ability to implement a "no-pets" policy or forbid a
tenant or occupant from having an animal on the premises.
First, the bill specifically prohibits "advertising the
availability of real property for occupancy in a manner designed
to discourage application for occupancy because the applicant's
animal has not been devocalized or declawed." The objective of
this prohibition is to address the problem of landlords running
ads for their rental properties that state a discriminatory
preference for an occupant whose animal is declawed or
devocalized. The author has supplied the Assembly Judiciary
Committee with a number of examples of classified ads for rental
housing that state a preference for tenants having a declawed
cat (e.g., "Will consider declawed cat only.") According to the
author, this provision is modeled on, but not identical to,
language from the California Fair Housing Act that makes it
unlawful for any person "to publish. . . an advertisement, with
respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that
indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, etc? or an intention to make that
preference, limitation, or discrimination." (Government Code
Section 12955(c).)
In addition, this bill specifically prohibits a person from
"refusing to allow the occupancy of any real property, refusing
to negotiate the occupancy of any real property, or otherwise
make unavailable or deny to any other person the occupancy of
any real property because of that person's refusal to devocalize
or declaw any animal." According to the author, this provision
is modeled on Section 804(a) of the federal Fair Housing Act
which makes it unlawful in federal housing "to refuse to sell or
SB 1229
Page 4
rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to
negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make
unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race,
color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin." (42
U.S.C. 3604.) This bill would prohibit those similar
discriminatory practices on the basis of whether a prospective
occupant would devocalize or declaw an animal. This type of
prohibition is intended to prohibit discrimination against a
person seeking housing, before any occupancy agreement or
tenancy is established in the real property, lest landlords or
property owners be able to evade the spirit of the law by simply
refusing to rent to persons on the same basis by which they
would be prohibited from discrimination if there was a lease.
As recently amended, only a city or district attorney or other
law enforcement prosecutorial entity has authority to enforce
violations of this bill. Violations of the advertising
prohibition are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per
advertisement, while violations of the other prohibitions are
punishable by a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per animal. In
both cases, the bill provides that the penalty is to be paid to
the entity authorized to bring an action for enforcement.
This bill is substantially similar to the enrolled version of AB
2743 (Nava) of 2010 which was vetoed by then-Governor
Schwarzenegger because it contained legislative findings and
declarations "that are unsupported by science." This bill does
not contain the same legislative findings and declarations and
does not include a prohibition for non-therapeutic reasons as
contained in AB 2743.
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0005520