BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 400
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 12, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Roger Hern�ndez, Chair
SB 400 (Jackson) - As Amended: April 16, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 21-12
SUBJECT : Employment protections: victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault, or stalking.
SUMMARY : Enacts various employment protections for employees
who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or
stalking. Specifically, this bill :
1)Extends specified existing protections for victims of domestic
violence and sexual assault to also include victims of
stalking.
2)Prohibits an employer from discharging, discriminating or
retaliating against an employee because of the employee's know
status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or
stalking.
3)Requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for
a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking who
requests an accommodation while at work.
4)Specifies that reasonable accommodations may include the
implementation of safety measures, including a transfer,
reassignment, modified schedule, changed work telephone,
changed work station, installed lock, assistance in
documenting domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, an
implemented safety procedure or another adjustment in job
structure, as specified.
5)Specifies that an employer is not required to provide a
reasonable accommodation to an employee who has not disclosed
his or her status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual
assault, or stalking.
6)Provides that an employer shall engage in a timely, good
faith, and interactive process with the employee to determine
effective reasonable accommodations.
SB 400
Page 2
7)Specifies that these requirements do not require an employer
to undertake an action that constitutes an undue hardship on
the employer's business operations, as specified.
8)Requires an employee requesting a reasonable accommodation,
upon request of the employer, to provide a written statement
by the employee or an individual acting on the employee's
behalf, certifying that the accommodation is for an authorized
purpose.
9)Authorizes an employer to also request certification
demonstrating the employee's status as a victim of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as specified, and
authorizes the employer to request recertification every six
months.
10)Provides that an employer shall not retaliate against a
victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking for
requesting a reasonable accommodation, regardless of whether
the request was granted.
11)Provides that an employee who is discharged or in any other
manner discriminated or retaliated against is entitled to
reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work
benefits caused by the acts of the employer, as well as
appropriate equitable relief.
12)Provides that an employer who willfully refuses to rehire,
promote or otherwise restore an employee or former employee
who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring or
promotion is guilty of a misdemeanor.
13)Provides that an employee who is discharged, threatened with
discharge, demoted, suspended, or denied a reasonable
accommodation may bring a civil action in superior court and
if the employee prevails, may be awarded attorney's fees and
costs.
14)Makes other related and conforming changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that an employer may not discharge or in any manner
discriminate or retaliate against an employee who is a victim
SB 400
Page 3
of domestic violence or sexual assault for taking time off
from work to obtain any relief, including but not limited to,
a temporary restraining order, restraining order, or other
injunctive relief.
2)Provides that an employer with 25 or more employees may not
discharge or discriminate or retaliate against an employee who
is a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault for taking
time off work to attend to any of the following:
a) To seek medical attention for injuries.
b) To obtain services from a domestic violence shelter
program or rape crisis center.
c) To obtain psychological counseling.
d) To participate in safety planning and take other actions
to increase safety, including temporary or permanent
revocation.
3)States that an employee shall give the employer reasonable
advance notice of the employee's intention to take time off,
unless the advance notice is not feasible.
4)States that when an unscheduled absence occurs, the employer
shall not take any action against the employee if
certification is provided within a reasonable time, including
a police report, court order protecting the employee from the
perpetrator, or documentation from a medical professional,
victim advocate, health care provider or counselor stating the
employee was undergoing treatment from an act of domestic
violence or sexual assault.
5)States that an employee who is discharged, threatened with
discharge, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated
against for taking time off for the above purposes is entitled
to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work
benefits and may file a complaint with the Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement. Additionally, an employer that
willfully refuses to rehire, promote, or otherwise restore an
employee who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring
or promotion is guilty of a misdemeanor.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
SB 400
Page 4
Committee, the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR)
estimates that it would incur annual costs (special funds) of
between $100,000 and $150,000 to implement the provisions of
this bill.
COMMENTS : Existing law generally affords employees who are
victims of domestic violence or sexual assault the right to take
time off from work for specified activities, including obtaining
a restraining order or seeking medical attention or
psychological counseling.
This bill seeks to make a number of changes to existing law, as
well as to add additional specified protections. First, this
bill would amend existing law related to leave and related
provisions to also include victims of stalking. Second, this
bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, discriminating
or retaliating against an employee because of the employee's
"know status" as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault,
or stalking. Third, this bill would require an employer to
provide reasonable accommodations for a victim of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking who requests an
accommodation while at work, as specified. Finally, this bill
would establish a civil cause of action and specified remedies
for violations of the law.
Brief Background on Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and
Stalking
According to Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey,
nearly 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men in the United States have
experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner -
among victims of intimate partner violence, more than 1 in 3
women experienced multiple forms of rape, stalking, or physical
violence. One in 6 women and 1 in 19 men in the United States
have experienced stalking victimization in which they felt very
fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be
harmed or killed.
Another report, Women's Health: Findings from the Women's Health
Survey, 1997-2003 compared national surveys of intimate partner
physical domestic violence (IPP-DV) to California. The report
found that national surveys indicate that between 1.3 percent to
3.0 percent of U.S. women experienced IPP-DV during the previous
12 month period - which is lower than the IPP-DV prevalence
SB 400
Page 5
estimate of 6.0 percent that was obtained from the 1998
California Women's Health Survey.
The author's office contends that the prevalence of domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking in the United States and
specifically California has a harmful effect on the ability of
victims to maintain employment. The author's office brought
attention to a recent study by the Legal Aid Society -
Employment Law Center, sponsor of this bill, that found that
nearly 40 percent of survivors in California reported either
being fired or fearing termination due to domestic violence.
The bill would provide employment protections for victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking by ensuring his
or her safety in the workplace and prohibiting employer
retaliation or discrimination based on an employee's status as a
victim.
Existing Protections Under Current Law
In 1999, the Legislature prohibited discrimination and
retaliation against employees who are victims of domestic
violence and who take time off to appear in court to obtain, or
attempt to obtain, judicial relief to help ensure the health,
safety, or welfare of a domestic violence victim or his or her
child. (See SB 56 (Solis, Ch. 340, Stats. 1999).) Prior to the
enactment of SB 56, domestic violence victims were often forced
to choose either economic security (stay at work and forego
obtaining legal protection) or personal safety (leave work, at
the risk of being terminated, to appear in court as a witness or
to obtain relief to guarantee their safety and the safety of
their children).
The next year, the Victims of Domestic Violence Employment Leave
Act (AB 2357 (Honda, Ch. 487, Stats. 2000)) provided
discrimination and retaliation protections for employees who are
victims of domestic violence and take leave from work to seek
medical attention or other services related to their abuse. In
2002, AB 2195 (Corbett, Ch. 275, Stats. 2002) extended these
protections to employees who are victims of sexual assault.
In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 provides that
"[a]ny employer, whose employee has suffered unlawful violence
or a credible threat of violence from an individual, that can
reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been
SB 400
Page 6
carried out at the workplace, may seek a temporary restraining
order and an injunction on behalf of the employee" and other
employees.
This Bills Extends These Existing Protections to Victims of
Stalking
This bill would extend the existing provisions of law discussed
above to victims of stalking. "Stalking" would be defined to
incorporate the definitions contained in the Penal Code and
Civil Code.
This Bill Prohibits Discrimination Based on an Employee's "Known
Status" as a Victim
This bill would also provide discrimination and retaliation
protections for employees whose victim status is known by the
employer (whether or not they take time off to seek court
assistance).
According to the author, "[t]he effects of domestic violence,
sexual assault, and stalking jeopardize a victim's safety and
stable source of income. Studies show alarming rates of job
loss and other problems at work due to abuse. A 2011 study by
the Legal Aid Society- Employment Law Center, sponsor of this
bill, found that nearly 40 [percent] of survivors in California
reported either being fired or fearing termination due to
domestic violence. A U.S. General Accounting Office study found
that close to 50 [percent] of sexual assault victims lost their
jobs or were forced to quit following their assault."
Notably, the discrimination and retaliation protections in
existing law, which enable employees who are domestic violence
or sexual assault victims to continue working, were established
to allow working individuals the ability to take advantage of
the protections of the civil and criminal justice system. The
author contends that providing employees with discrimination and
retaliation protections based on their known status as a victim
of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, regardless of
whether they take leave from work to seek judicial relief or
medical or other services, is a common-sense step toward
maintaining the protections provided under existing law.
Opponents of this bill express concern that this provision would
"require employers to inquire into an employee's personal life,
SB 400
Page 7
outside of work, thereby placing them in a legal predicament."
Opponents argue that the Labor Code precludes employers from
taking any action based upon off-duty conduct, and the
California Constitution recognizes that employees have a legal
right to privacy in their personal lives and relationships.
Further, opponents argue that this bill would prohibit an
employer from discriminating against an employee of domestic
abuse, stalking, or sexual assault if the employer knows of the
employee's protected status. Opponents assert that "[c]ourts
have interpreted a 'knowledge' standard to mean not only actual
knowledge, but also constructive knowledge. . . . Accordingly,
employers will be potentially forced to choose between: (1) a
claim of discrimination under SB 400 by failing to have known or
inferred that the employee is a victim of domestic abuse, sexual
assault, or stalking; or (2) a claim for invasion of privacy and
violation of the Labor Code, because the employer inquired into
the employee's off-duty personal life."
The Senate Judiciary Committee analysis of this bill describes
the opposition concern and the author's response as follows:
"Additionally, opponents contend that this bill puts
employers in a difficult legal predicament between
respecting employee off-duty privacy and collecting
sufficient information to determine if an employee is a
victim, as classified under SB 400. The author notes that
the bill language demonstrates that the responsibility to
disclose is with the survivor. This both helps protect the
employer from the concerns mentioned above and also
protects the privacy of the survivor to disclose
information regarding her status as a victim under her
discretion."
However, opponents (including the California Chamber of Commerce
and the Civil Justice Association of California) note that the
disclosure requirement only exists for the reasonable
accommodation provision of the bill. As the California Chamber
of Commerce states in its letter:
"Specifically, SB 400 only requires an employee to
'disclose' his or her status as a victim for purposes of
requesting a reasonable accommodation. There is no similar
disclosure requirement on an employee for the broader
anti-discrimination/retaliation protections proposed under
this bill. Rather, an employer is prohibited from
SB 400
Page 8
discriminating or retaliating against an employee of
domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault if the employer
simply 'knows' of the employee's protected status."
In further response to this issue, the author's office states
the following:
"A disclosure requirement is unnecessary for the
'discrimination based on known status,' because as with
other employment discrimination cases, the plaintiff bears
the burden of proving that the employer knew of her status
and discriminated against her because of it. No other
legislation requires that an employee disclose his or her
protected status if it is not obvious in order to later
make a claim that he/she was discriminated against on that
basis.
For instance, in the context of disability law, someone
with a non-obvious or hidden disability would have to
disclose their disability in order to request a reasonable
accommodation. They would not , however, be required to
disclose in order to later claim discrimination on the
basis of that disability. Rather, they could (and would
have to) prove the employer learned of their disability in
some other way."
Reasonable Accommodation Provisions of the Bill
This bill would also require an employer to provide reasonable
safety accommodations for the victim employee, and prohibit
discrimination or retaliation against an employee who requests
an accommodation.
In support of the reasonable accommodation requirement in this
bill, Williams-Sonoma, Inc. states:
Domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking often follow
victims to the workplace, jeopardizing their safety at work
and that of their colleagues, and impacting their ability to
earn a steady income. At Williams-Sonoma, Inc., we have
committed to provide reasonable accommodations such as
changing a telephone extension, implementing a workplace
safety plan, or offering shift changes to survivors of
domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. We also
ensure that victims are not discriminated against based on the
SB 400
Page 9
abuse they have suffered, and we do our best to maintain the
confidentiality of any associate who identifies as a victim
and seeks assistance or accommodation.
We believe by implementing these policies we have improved the
safety of all our associates, strengthened our ability to
prevent violence in the workplace, affirmed our commitment to
maintain an environment where all working parents can thrive,
and advanced our mission to enhance our customers' and our
associates' lives at home.
Existing law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA),
prohibits an employer from discriminating against employees or
job applicants with disabilities and requires an employer to
engage in an interactive process with a qualified individual to
explore reasonable accommodations that would allow the employee
or applicant to perform the essential functions of his or her
job. (Gov. Code Sec. 19240.) FEHA also provides that an
employer is not required to make an accommodation that is
demonstrated by the employer to produce undue hardship to its
operation. (Gov. Code Sec. 12940(m).)
An "undue hardship" is defined as an action requiring
significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of
the following factors:
the nature and cost of the accommodation needed;
the overall financial resources of the facilities involved in
the provision of the reasonable accommodations, the number of
persons employed at the facility, and the effect on expenses
and resources or the impact otherwise of these accommodations
upon the operation of the facility;
the overall financial resources of the covered entity, the
overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect
to the number of employees, and the number, type, and location
of its facilities;
the type of operations, including the composition, structure,
and functions of the workforce of the entity; and
the geographic separateness, administrative, or fiscal
relationship of the facility or facilities. (Gov. Code Sec.
12926(t).)
This bill would not require an employer to undertake an action
that would constitute an undue hardship on the employer's
business operations. This bill would use the definition above
SB 400
Page 10
to define "undue hardship," which has been the standard used by
employees, employers, and courts for interpreting "reasonable
accommodation" for over 20 years.
Opponents argue that this provision of the bill would create
confusion for employers and raises questions about how to
determine what is a reasonable accommodation in these situations
or how long the accommodation must be provided. Opponents
further argue that there is no evidence to suggest that existing
law is insufficient to help these employees, or that the
additional protections in this bill are necessary, especially in
comparison to the significant burden and the bill would create
for employers.
With respect to determining a reasonable accommodation, the
author asserts that this bill provides an interactive process
between the employer and employee to determine the reasonable
accommodation. Further, an employer would not be required to
provide an accommodation that creates an undue burden on the
employer. As for the extent of time the employer must provide
the accommodation, this bill would authorize the employer to
request further documentation of the employee's status every six
months.
Further, the author disagrees with the contention that this will
place a "significant burden" on employers. This bill already
includes language that reasonable accommodation does not need to
be provided in cases where it would constitute an undue hardship
for the employer. The author further notes that there are a
number of resources that already exist for businesses planning
to implement programs to address domestic violence, sexual
assault or stalking and many corporations have already
proactively implemented supportive policies.
New Civil Action and Remedies
Existing law provides an administrative complaint process for
employees who are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault
who have been discriminated or retaliated against for seeking
judicial relief. (Lab. Code Sec. 230(f).) This bill would
authorize an employee to also file a civil action against the
employer who discriminates or retaliates against or fails to
provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee who has taken
leave from work to seek judicial relief or who is known to the
employer to be a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or
SB 400
Page 11
stalking. This bill would also authorize a victim employee, who
is discriminated or retaliated against for requesting a safety
accommodation, to file a civil action and, in addition to
existing remedies of reinstatement, back wages, would authorize
an award of attorney's fees to the prevailing employee.
Further, existing law provides discrimination and retaliation
protections for employees who are victims of domestic violence
or sexual assault and take time off work to seek medical
attention, obtain various counseling services, and relocate.
(Labor Code sec. 230.1.) This bill would authorize an award of
equitable relief and attorney's fees to the prevailing employee
in any action alleging a violation of that provision.
The author argues that these provisions are necessary to ensure
that employees who are victims of domestic abuse, sexual
assault, and stalking are able to maintain their jobs while
staying safe. The author asserts that "[f]iring an employee who
discloses that she/he is a victim of domestic or sexual violence
or stalking undermines the economic independence and safety of
survivors, and discourages the reporting of safety concerns in
the workplace for fear of retribution."
Opponents express concern that these new civil action and remedy
provisions of the bill would result in increased litigation
against employers. Opponents also question why a civil remedy
is necessary when existing law governing leave provisions merely
contains an administrative complaint process.
In response, the author points to evidence from the other states
with existing protections that indicates that litigation is
likely to be quite rare. In Illinois, only 174 employment
complaints (an average of 17.4 per year) have been filed with
the Illinois Department of Labor since 2003. Excluding the
claims that only deal with leave, a protection already provided
under California law, the number of complaints drops to 98 (or
9.8 per year). Hawaii also has a law providing
antidiscrimination and accommodations protections to victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Hawaii's
statute went into effect in 2012 and there were only 3
complaints of discrimination based on victim status filed with
the agency in that year. At similar rates, the author argues
that the number of cases in California would be extremely low.
Opponents counter that if the number of cases in California
SB 400
Page 12
would be extremely low, the administrative complaint process
would provide adequate protection and there is no need for a
private civil cause of action.
Protections in Other States
The author notes the following statutes have already been
enacted to provide enhanced employee protections for victims of
domestic abuse, sexual assault, and stalking:
Connecticut state law prohibits an employer from firing,
penalizing or threatening an employee for attending or
participating in a court proceeding related to a civil case in
which the employee is a victim of family violence, including
an incident resulting in physical harm, bodily injury or
assault, or an act of threatened violence that constitutes
fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault
between family or household members. Connecticut state law
also prohibits an employer from firing, penalizing or
threatening an employee because "the employee is a victim of
family violence." Connecticut state law also requires
employers to give employee victims of family violence up to
twelve days of unpaid leave during a calendar year, in
addition to other leave provided under state and federal law,
to seek medical care or psychological counseling, obtain
services from a domestic violence assistance organization,
victim relocation or participate in criminal proceedings
related to or resulting from family violence. ((Public Act
No. 10-144), amending Conn. Gen. Statute section 54-85(b).)
Hawaii's Revised Statutes (Section 378-2) include domestic or
sexual violence victim status in its anti-discrimination labor
laws and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations
for victims of domestic or sexual violence, including, but not
limited to, changing contact information such as telephone
number or email address, screening the employee's telephone
calls, changing the work location for the employee, installing
locks and other security devices and allowing the employee to
work flexible hours. Hawaii state law also allows employers
to request that the employee verify that he or she is a victim
of domestic or sexual violence by providing a written
statement from the employee, or other sources including,
police or court records.
Oregon Rev. Stat. section 659A.290 prohibits employment
SB 400
Page 13
discrimination against victims of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and stalking. Oregon law also requires employers to
provide leave to victims of these crimes, as well as
reasonable safety accommodations.
New York Human Rights Law section 296 prohibits employment
discrimination based on domestic violence victim status.
Illinois Compiled Statutes (Section 820, ILCS 180/15)
prohibits employer discrimination based on an employee's
status as a victim of domestic or sexual violence. Illinois
State law also entitles employed victims of domestic or sexual
violence and employees with a family or household member who
is a victim to take unpaid leave to seek medical help, legal
assistance, counseling, safety planning, and other assistance
without penalty from their employers. The state's law also
protects employees from discharge and harassment when, in
response to actual or threatened domestic or sexual violence,
they request an adjustment to their job structure, workplace
facility, work requirement, including a transfer,
reassignment, or modified schedule, leave, a changed telephone
number or seating assignment, installation of a lock or
implementation of a safety procedure.
Further, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law,
based in Illinois, argues in support of this bill:
"In 2003 then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama partnered
with the Shriver Center to pass the Victims' Economic Security
and Safety Act, or VESSA, the most comprehensive set of
employment protections for employees coping with domestic and
sexual violence in the country. . . . The importance of
anti-discrimination and accommodation provisions is real.
Since enactment in 2003, the Illinois Department of Labor has
had a total of 174 complaints filed. The majority of
complaints (98) are related to discrimination, 31 are related
to leave, and 33 are a combination of leave and
discrimination. It has been my experience that most cases are
settled before a formal complaint is ever filed because many
of the reported problems stem from the employer's lack of
knowledge about the law rather than the resistance to the law.
While more outreach to and education for both employers and
employees would always be helpful, I can confidently state
that since its enactment, VESSA has been a valuable tool; it
has prevented employees from getting fired simply because they
SB 400
Page 14
are survivors, and it has afforded survivors the opportunity
to stay employed and escape violence."
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT :
Supporters argue that although existing law recognizes a
victim's need to take time off work, it is simply not enough for
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.
According to one of this bill's sponsors, the Legal Aid Society
- Employment Law Center, domestic violence, sexual assault, and
stalking have a harmful effect on the ability of victims to
maintain employment. The co-sponsor points to various
statistics that illustrate the alarming rates of job loss and
other problems at work due to the abuse - one study in
particular found that nearly 50% of survivors of sexual assault
lost their jobs or were forced to quit following the assault.
Supporters argue that firing an employee who discloses that
he/she is a victim of domestic or sexual violence or stalking
undermines California public policy to protect the economic
independence and safety or victims and to encourage employees to
report safety concerns in the workplace without fear of
retribution. Supporters also maintain that refusing to provide
a reasonable safety accommodation upon an employee's request,
such as a changed telephone extension or implementing a
workplace safety place, forces a victim to choose between their
own safety and financial security when they are at their most
vulnerable.
Finally, supporters bring attention to the guidelines issued by
the U.S. government last February. The guidelines direct
federal agencies to implement non-discrimination and
accommodation policies in their workplaces in order to protect
employees dealing with domestic violence, sexual assault and
stalking. Supporters contend that it is vital for California to
follow this example and protect the employment of victims when
they are most in need of financial stability and workplace
safety.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION :
Opponents argue that this bill forces employers into a judicial
role, given the task to determine when a crime has occurred for
purposes of triggering these proposed protections. They contend
that employers are not in a position to make such decisions as
SB 400
Page 15
unlike other existing protected classifications that are more
objective, determining who is a victim of domestic abuse, sexual
assault, or stalking is a daunting task for employers.
Additionally, opponents contend that this bill puts employers in
a difficult legal predicament between respecting employee
off-duty privacy and collecting sufficient information to
determine if an employee is a victim as classified under this
bill.
Further, opponents argue that the requirement to reasonably
accommodation an employee who is a victim of domestic abuse,
sexual assault, or stalking is unclear. Opponents maintain that
unlike an employer's duty to accommodate a physical disability,
the extent to which is generally documented by a medical
provider, the employer has no clear guidance to determine what
qualifies as a reasonable accommodation. Additionally,
opponents argue that is it unclear how long an employer must
accommodate the employee.
Finally, opponents argue that there are already significant
protections for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault,
and stalking including those discussed in existing law, the
extension of workers' compensation benefits to employees who are
victims of a crime at the workplace, and the Code of Civil
Procedure section 527.8 that allows an employer to obtain a
restraining order on behalf of an employee. Opponents maintain
that there is no evidence to suggest that the additional
protections in this bill are necessary, especially in comparison
to the significant burden and cost of litigation this bill
creates for employers.
PRIOR RELATED LEGISLATION :
This bill is similar in concept to the enrolled version of SB
1745 (Kuehl of 2006). SB 1745 would have amended the Civil Code
to declare it against public policy for an employer to harass or
discriminate against an individual because the person is a
victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
SB 1745 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger who stated the
SB 400
Page 16
following:
"This bill would provide that it is contrary to the public
policy of the State to discriminate against a person in
employment because he or she is a victim of domestic violence,
sexual assault, or stalking. Although I support the intent to
ensure victims of these crimes have adequate protections, this
bill is too flawed to enact.
California employers are currently required to take reasonable
steps to provide a safe and secure workplace for all
employees, including a duty to adequately address the
potential for workplace violence. Because the precise
employee rights and employer obligations under this bill are
not defined, the combination of existing law and this bill
would place employers in an untenable position.
For instance, if an employer determines that removing an
employee from the workplace is necessary to provide a safe
workplace and keep other employees safe, the employer may very
well be sued for violation of the public policy established by
this bill. On the other hand, if the employer determines an
employee must be allowed to continue performing duties in the
workplace in order to comply with this bill, the employer may
face litigation arising from injuries sustained by other
employees if workplace violence occurs.
I am also concerned that this bill could lead employers, in an
effort to comply with the law, to violate an employee's
privacy. Because the law is unclear whether an employer must
have specific knowledge that an employee is a victim in order
for the protections of this bill to apply, an employer may
feel compelled to inquire about the personal reasons why an
employee has missed worked or taken a prolonged absence. This
is not only an [undue] burden on employers but a possible
invasion of employees' privacy rights.
However well-intentioned or worthy of consideration, this bill
would create conditions that can only be resolved through the
courts at great expense to employers and employees alike."
AB 1740 (V. Manuel P�rez) from 2012 was substantially similar to
this bill and would have prohibited employers from
discriminating against employees who are victims of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking and would have allowed
SB 400
Page 17
employees to request reasonable accommodations to ensure their
safety in the workplace. AB 1740 was held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
A Better Balance Work and Family Legal Center
Alameda County Family Justice Center
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (co-sponsor)
California Communities United Institute
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California National Organization for Women
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (co-sponsor)
California Police Chiefs Associations, Inc.
California Professional Firefighters
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California School Employees Association
California Women's Law Center
CARE - USCB
Center for Domestic Peace
Centro Legal de la Raza
Child Abuse Listening and Meditation
Community United Against Violence
Crime Victims United of California
Domestic Violence Solutions for Santa Barbara County
Emergency Shelter Program of California
Excelligence Learning Corporation
Futures Without Violence
Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Interface Children and Family Services
Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles
La Casa de las Madres
Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center (co-sponsor)
Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
Legal Momentum
Mountain Crisis Services
National Association of Social Workers
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
Numerous Individuals
Oakland Centro Legal de la Raza
SB 400
Page 18
Organization of Farmworker Women Leaders in California (Lideres
Campesinas)
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Peace Over Violence
San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
South Asian Network
U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce
United Auto Workers Local 2865
Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles
Walnut Avenue Women's Center - Family Resource Center
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
Women's Crisis Support - Defenza de Mujeres
Women's Employment Rights Clinic - Golden Gate University School
of Law
Women's Foundation of California
Worksafe
Opposition
Associated General Contractors
California Association of Joint Powers Authority
California Bankers Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Employment Law Council
California Framing Contractors Association
California Grocers Association
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Independent Grocers Association
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
Chambers of Commerce Alliance Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties
Civil Justice Association of California
National Federation of Independent Business
South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
SB 400
Page 19