BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 2271 (Calderon)
As Amended March 28, 2014
Hearing Date: June 17, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TMW
SUBJECT
Employment: Discrimination: Status as Unemployed
DESCRIPTION
This bill would prohibit an employer from discriminating against
prospective job applicants on the basis of the applicant's
employment status. This bill would provide that an employer,
employment agency, or person operating an Internet job posting
Web site who discriminates against unemployed job applicants
would be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed
$1,000 for the first violation, $5,000 for the second violation,
and $10,000 for each subsequent violation, enforceable by the
Labor Commissioner.
BACKGROUND
Following the recent financial crisis that began in 2007,
millions of Americans are currently unemployed. California has
an unemployment rate of 7.8 percent, compared to about 6.3
percent nationally. Recently, reports are surfacing that many
employers are requiring, as a part of the job description, that
the applicant be currently employed.
On February 16, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) held a public hearing to examine the impact of
employers considering only those currently employed for job
vacancies. According to the EEOC Press Statement on the
hearing:
(more)
AB 2271 (Calderon)
Page 2 of ?
"Throughout its 45 year history, the EEOC has identified
and remedied discrimination in hiring and remains committed
to ensuring job applicants are treated fairly," said EEOC
Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. "Today's meeting gave the
Commission an important opportunity to learn about the
emerging practice of excluding unemployed persons from
applicant pools."
According to Helen Norton, Associate Professor at the
University of Colorado School of Law, employers and staffing
agencies have publicly advertised jobs in fields ranging
from electronic engineers to restaurant and grocery managers
to mortgage underwriters with the explicit restriction that
only currently employed candidates will be considered.
"Some employers may use current employment as a signal of
quality job performance," Norton testified. "But such a
correlation is decidedly weak. A blanket reliance on
current employment serves as a poor proxy for successful job
performance."
"The use of an individual's current or recent unemployment
status as a hiring selection device is a troubling
development in the labor market," said Fatima Goss Graves,
Vice President for Education and Employment of the National
Women's Law Center. She noted that this practice "may well
act as a negative counterweight" to government efforts to
get people back to work. Women, particularly older women
and those in non-traditional occupations, are
disproportionately affected by this restriction, testified
Goss Graves.
Denying jobs to the already-unemployed can also have a
disproportionate effect on certain racial and ethnic
minority community members, Algernon Austin, Director of the
Program on Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy of the Economic
Policy Institute, explained. Unemployment rates for
African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans are higher
than those of whites. When comparing college-educated
workers, the unemployment rate for Asians is also higher.
Thus, restricting applications to the currently employed
could place a heavier burden on people of color, he
concluded.
The use of employment status to screen job applicants could
also seriously impact people with disabilities, according to
AB 2271 (Calderon)
Page 3 of ?
Joyce Bender, an expert in the employment of people with
disabilities. "Given my experience, I can say without a
doubt that the practice of excluding persons who are
currently unemployed from applicant pools is real and can
have a negative impact on persons with disabilities," Bender
told the Commission.
Dr. William Spriggs, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Policy, offered data supporting this testimony. Spriggs
presented current national employment statistics showing
that African-Americans and Hispanics are overrepresented
among the unemployed. He also stated that excluding the
unemployed would be more likely to limit opportunities for
older applicants as well as persons with disabilities.
(Equal Empl. Opportunity Com., Press Release, Out of Work?
Out of Luck: EEOC Examines Employers' Treatment of
Unemployed Job Applicants at Hearing (Feb. 16, 2011)
[as
of June 8, 2014].)
Following increased media attention to discrimination against
unemployed workers in hiring practices, on July 12, 2011, the
National Employment Law Project (NELP) released a study which
found that, in one month, there were more than 125 online job
postings that required candidates to be "currently employed."
According to the study, "[s]ignificantly, the fact that NELP's
relatively limited research yielded such a broad cross-section
of exclusionary ads - with postings for jobs throughout the
United States, by small, medium and large employers, for white
collar, blue collar, and service sector jobs, at virtually every
skill level - suggests that the practice of excluding unemployed
job seekers could be far more extensive than depicted in this
limited sample." (National Employment Law Project, Briefing
Paper, Hiring Discrimination Against the Unemployed (July 12,
2011) p. 2.)
Recent legislation aimed at protecting unemployed individuals
seeking work was enacted in New Jersey, Oregon, and the District
of Columbia, which now prohibit employers from specifying in
print or Internet job advertisements that unemployed persons
will not be considered for hire. New York City amended its
Human Rights Law, effective June 11, 2013, to define a job
applicant's unemployed status as a protected class along with
age, race, creed, color, national origin, gender, disability,
marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation, and
AB 2271 (Calderon)
Page 4 of ?
alienage/citizenship status and provides plaintiffs with the
right to pursue private civil claims.
However, on the federal level, the Fair Employment Act of 2011,
the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011, and the American
Jobs Act of 2011, were introduced and would have made it illegal
for employers to discriminate based on employment status, but
that legislation was not enacted. (See H.R. No. 1113, 112th
Cong., 1st Sess. (2011); H.R. 2501, 112th Cong., 1st Sess.
(2011); S. 1471, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. (2011)); S. 1549, 112th
Cong., 1st Sess., Part III, Subtitle D (2011); H.R. 12, 112th
Cong., 1st Sess. (2011), Sec D.)
Similarly, this bill would prohibit discrimination by an
employer based on a prospective job applicant's employment
status. This bill is similar to AB 1450 (Allen, 2012), which
passed out of this Committee on a vote of 3-1 and was vetoed by
Governor Brown because he believed AB 1450 would lead to
unnecessary confusion.
If this bill is approved by this Committee, it will be referred
to the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA),
prohibits, as a matter of public policy, discrimination and
harassment in employment on the basis of race, religious creed,
color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental
disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital
status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age,
sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. (Gov. Code
Sec. 12940 et seq.)
This bill would prohibit, unless based on a bona fide
occupational qualification, an employer from either:
publishing in print, on the Internet or in any other medium,
an advertisement or announcement for any job that includes a
provision stating or indicating that an individual's current
employment is a requirement for the job; or
affirmatively asking an applicant for employment to disclose,
orally or in writing, information concerning the applicant's
current employment status until the employer has determined
that the applicant meets the minimum employment qualifications
AB 2271 (Calderon)
Page 5 of ?
for the position, as stated in the published notice for the
job.
This bill would prohibit, unless based on a bona fide
occupational qualification, an employment agency from doing any
of the following:
publishing in print, on the Internet or in any other medium,
an advertisement or announcement for any job that includes a
provision stating or indicating that an individual's current
employment is a requirement for a job;
limiting, segregating, or classifying an individual in any
manner that may limit that individual's access to information
about jobs or referrals for consideration of jobs because of
the individual's employment status; and
affirmatively asking an applicant for employment to disclose,
orally or in writing, information concerning the applicant's
current employment status until the employer has determined
that the applicant meets the minimum employment qualifications
for the position, as stated in the published notice for the
job.
This bill would prohibit, unless based on a bona fide
occupational qualification, a person who operates an Internet
Web site for posting jobs in this state from publishing on that
Internet Web site an advertisement or announcement for any job
that includes a provision stating or indicating that an
individual's current employment is a requirement for a job.
This bill would define "employer" to mean the state or any
political or civil subdivision of the state and any person who
directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person,
employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working
conditions of any person.
This bill would define "employment agency" to mean any person
who, for a fee or other valuable consideration to be paid,
directly or indirectly by a jobseeker, performs, offers to
perform, or represents it can or will perform employment
services, as specified, but would not include any employment
counseling service or any job listing service.
This bill would define "employment status" to mean an
individual's present unemployment, regardless of the length of
time the individual has been unemployed.
This bill would not preclude an employer, employment agency, or
AB 2271 (Calderon)
Page 6 of ?
a person who operates an Internet Web site for posting jobs in
this state, or an agent, representative, or designee of that
employer, employment agency, or Internet Web site, from:
setting forth qualifications for any job or publishing in
print, on the Internet or in any other medium, an
advertisement or announcement for any job that contains any
provision setting forth qualifications for a job, including:
(1) holding a current and valid professional or occupational
license, certificate, registration, permit, or other
credential; (2) requiring a minimum level of education or
training or professional, occupational, or field experience;
and (3) stating that only individuals who are current
employees of the employer will be considered for that job;
obtaining information regarding an individual's employment,
including recent relevant experience;
having knowledge of a person's employment status;
inquiring as to the reasons for an individual's employment
status;
refuse to offer employment to a person because of the reasons
underlying an individual's employment status; and
otherwise making employment decisions pertaining to that
individual.
This bill would prohibit an employer, an employment agency, or a
person operating an Internet Web site for posting jobs from
doing either of the following:
interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of, or
the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this bill;
and
discriminating against any individual because the individual:
(1) opposed any practice made unlawful; (2) has instituted, or
caused to be instituted, any proceeding; (3) has provided, or
is about to provide, any information in connection with any
inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided; or (4)
has testified, or is about to testify, in any inquiry or
proceeding relating to any right under this bill.
This bill would authorize an individual aggrieved by a violation
to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner, who would be
authorized to impose a civil penalty against any employer,
employment agency, or person operating an Internet Web site for
posting jobs that the commissioner finds to be in violation.
This bill would specify that an employer, employment agency, or
person operating an Internet Web site for posting jobs in
violation would be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for the
AB 2271 (Calderon)
Page 7 of ?
first violation, $5,000 for the second violation, and $10,000
for each subsequent violation.
This bill would prohibit a private right of action for a
violation.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
Research shows that the long-term unemployed are frequently
overlooked and sometimes excluded from job opportunities.
Employers and employment agencies have posted job vacancy
notifications with language such as "No unemployed candidates
considered at all" or "Only currently employed candidates will
be considered."
The National Employment Law Project [(NELP)] has found that
the "falling unemployment rate and improving economic
conditions are not translating into adequate job opportunities
for millions of long-term unemployed job seekers." A study
found that long-term unemployed workers with otherwise
identical resumes were called back for interviews at rates 45%
lower than the short-term unemployed.
Also, employers are disinclined to hire even well-qualified
job applicants who have been out of work for six months or
longer. Three Princeton economists found that only 11% of
those unemployed for more than 6 months will ever regain
steady full-time work.
California Statistics: 40.5% of the unemployed in CA have
been out of work for 27 weeks or longer. 214,800 people in
California lost their unemployment benefits on December 28,
2013 when the federal unemployment benefits lapsed and 836,100
will lose access to benefits through 2014.
AB 2271 (Calderon)
Page 8 of ?
AB 2271 will make sure that the unemployed are not unfairly
discriminated against and provide opportunities for unemployed
Californians to at least get their foot in the door and prove
to employers they are qualified and a good candidate for the
job.
AB 2271 would prevent employers, including state and local
agencies, or employment agencies from affirmatively asking an
applicant for employment to disclose information concerning
employment status until the employer or employment agency has
determined that the applicant meets the minimum employment
qualifications for the position.
The bill will also prohibit an employer, employment agency, or
person who operates [an] Internet Web Site for posting jobs in
this state from publishing a job announcement or advertisement
containing a provision stating or indicating that an
individual's current employment is a requirement for the job,
unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification.
2. Discrimination protection for unemployed job seekers
As discussed during the February 26, 2011 public hearing held by
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), there is an
emerging practice across the country of excluding unemployed
people from applicant pools. (See Background.) This bill seeks
to address this problem by prohibiting an employer, an
employment agency, or a person operating an Internet Web site
for posting jobs in this state from discriminating against a job
applicant on the basis of the applicant's employment status.
Under federal law, Title VII covers all public and private
employers with 15 or more employees, and prohibits employment
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin, and applies to all aspects of the employment
relationship, including hiring, compensation, training,
benefits, working conditions, discipline, promotion, and
termination. California law provides more expansive
antidiscrimination protections for employees under the Fair
AB 2271 (Calderon)
Page 9 of ?
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which prohibits
discrimination in employment on the basis of race, religious
creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability,
mental disability, medical condition, genetic information,
marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression,
age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. (Gov.
Code Sec. 12940 et seq.)
Instead of adding employment status to the list of
antidiscrimination protections provided in FEHA, this bill would
create separate discrimination prohibitions for employment
status. Although employees would not have the more expansive
level of protections and enforcement provisions that are
provided under FEHA, this bill would protect unemployed
individuals from discrimination while acknowledging an
employer's need to verify an individual's employment history as
well as the reasons for why he or she is unemployed. Further,
the modest provisions of this bill are appropriate because most
employers consider this type of discrimination to be unnecessary
and would continue to refrain from engaging in such
discrimination.
The California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, in support, writes:
The lingering economic downturn presents unemployed workers
with a wide variety of unique challenges: our unemployment
rate hovers at over 8%, and those without jobs have found
themselves idled for historic lengths of time. From 3 workers
fighting over every available job to the shifting demands of
today's economy, it has never been harder to find stable,
reliable work.
In addition, this most recent recession gave birth to a new
and particularly insidious form of discrimination. Across the
country, many employers, employment agencies, and online job
websites have begun to openly advertise warnings like "no
unemployed candidates considered at all" or "must be currently
employed." Creating a perverse catch-22, these corporations
require that you already have a job in order to get a job. . .
.
AB 2271 will help end this discrimination, whether in
advertisements or through hiring policies. Employers will be
prohibited from inquiring about employment status before
assessing an applicant's qualifications, though an employer's
right to consider employment history will be explicitly
AB 2271 (Calderon)
Page 10 of ?
protected.
This common sense reform simply ends blanket policies that
exclude qualified workers, and thus the bill only affects
employers currently engaging in the practice. Meanwhile,
California's unemployed will face one less obstacle between
them and a successful return to the workforce.
This bill would limit an individual's remedies against an
employer, employment agency, or person operating a job posting
Web site to an administrative procedure in which the individual
would file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. The Labor
Commissioner would then be authorized to impose civil penalties
based on the three-tier scheme created in this bill. Unlike AB
1450, which would have created a private right of action against
the violating party, this bill would specifically prohibit a
private right of action. Also unlike AB 1450, which would have
required an employer who contracts with a state agency to comply
with the bill and would have created a breach of contract and
grounds for contract termination for the employer's failure to
comply, this bill does not include contractors with the state or
provide for contract termination with the contractor who fails
to comply.
3. Governor Brown's veto of AB 1450
This bill is similar to the enrolled version of AB 1450 (Allen,
2012). In vetoing AB 1450, Governor Brown stated:
This measure seeks to prevent discrimination against the
unemployed based on their job status by prohibiting employers
from stating in employment ads that applicants must be
employed. Unfortunately, as this measure went through the
legislative process it was changed in a way that could lead to
unnecessary confusion.
Support : California Employment Lawyers Association; California
Labor Federation, AFL-CIO; California School Employees
Association, AFL-CIO; Consumer Attorneys of California
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Author
AB 2271 (Calderon)
Page 11 of ?
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : AB 1450 (Allen, 2012) See Background,
Comments 2, 3.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 51, Noes 23)
Assembly Committee on Appropriations (Ayes 12, Noes 5)
Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment (Ayes 5, Noes 2)
**************