BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó

                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 1

          Date of Hearing:  June 25, 2013

                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
                                Bob Wieckowski, Chair
                    SB 400 (Jackson) - As Amended: April 16, 2013
                               As Proposed to be Amended
          SENATE VOTE  :  21-12


           FISCAL EFFECT :  As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

          This bill is substantially the same as a measure approved by the  
          Committee last year, which was subsequently held in the  
          Appropriations Committee.  The bill prohibits employers from  
          discriminating or retaliating against employees who suffer  
          domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, and would allow  
          employees to request reasonable accommodation to ensure their  
          safety in the workplace.  The bill's supporters, including law  
          enforcement, domestic violence, labor and community groups,  
          report that domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking  
          filter into the workplace and jeopardize victims' employment and  
          safety at work.  The problem is appallingly widespread, with one  
          in five women reportedly experiencing some form of domestic  
          violence in her lifetime, often associated with alarming rates  
          of job loss and other problems at work due to abuse.  This bill  
          would offer a modicum of protection.  Because acts of violence  
          can often follow a victim to work, basic accommodations, such as  
          providing a new telephone extension or work email address, can  
          help protect abuse victims and the employers.  By protecting  
          victims from discrimination and retaliation, supporters argue,  
          victims who frequently fear adverse employment actions will be  
          less hesitant to report and work with law enforcement to  
          investigate and prosecute domestic abuse crimes. 

          Business advocates oppose the bill, arguing that it will expose  


                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 2

          employers to costly litigation, as well as interfere with the  
          employer's ability to efficiently operate its business.  
          According to opponents,"  There is simply no evidence to suggest  
          that the additional protections proposed by SB 400 are necessary  
          in light of the existing protections, especially in comparison  
          to the significant burden and cost of litigation SB 400 will  
          create for employers."

           SUMMARY  :  Prohibits job discrimination and requires reasonable  
          accommodation of victims of domestic violence, sexual assault  
          and stalking.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Protects victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or  
            stalking (all of which are defined by reference to existing  
            law) from employment discrimination and retaliation if the  
            victim provides notice to the employer of the status or the  
            employer has actual knowledge of the status.

          2)Requires reasonable accommodation for the workplace safety of  
            these victims if requested, such as:

             a)   A transfer, reassignment or modified schedule;

             b)   Changed work telephone, changed work station or  
               installed lock;

             c)   Assistance in documenting domestic violence, sexual  
               assault or stalking that occurs in the workplace; and,

             d)   An implemented safety procedure or another adjustment to  
               a job structure, workplace facility, or work requirement in  
               response to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.  

          3)Specifies that an employer is not required to undertake an  
            action that constitutes an undue hardship on the employer's  
            business operations. 

          4)Requires an employee, or an individual acting on the  
            employee's behalf, to provide a signed written statement to  
            his or her employer certifying that the accommodation is for a  
            purpose related to the status as a victim of domestic  
            violence, sexual assault or stalking.

          5)Allows an employer to request that an employee provide either  


                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 3

            a police or court record or other documentation related to the  
            domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.

          6)Requires employers to maintain as confidential and prohibits  
            disclosure by the employer, any verbal or written statement,  
            police or court record, or documentation provided to the  
            employer identifying an employee as a victim of domestic  
            violence, sexual assault or stalking.  However, this bill  
            permits an employer to disclose documentation of an employee's  
            status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or  
            stalking if federal or state law requires the employer to do  
            so or if disclosure is necessary to protect the employee's  
            safety in the workplace.

           EXISTING LAW  :  

           1)Prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against  
            victims of domestic violence or sexual assault who take time  
            off from work to seek judicial relief to help ensure the  
            health or welfare of the victim or his or her child.  (Labor  
            Code section 230.)

          2)Prohibits employers with 25 or more employees from discharging  
            or discriminating against a victim who takes time off to seek  
            medical attention, obtain services from a domestic violence  
            shelter or rape crisis center, obtain psychological counseling  
            or participate in safety planning.  (Labor Code section  

           COMMENTS  :  The author states that domestic violence, sexual  
          assault and stalking are forms of violence that trickle into the  
          workplace and jeopardize victims' employment and safety at work.  
           Reports indicate that one in five women will experience some  
          form of domestic violence in her lifetime, and studies have  
          shown alarming rates of job loss and other problems at work due  
          to abuse.  According to the author, nearly 50 percent of sexual  
          assault survivors have lost their jobs or were forced to quit  
          following the assault.  Supporters note that economic  
          independence is a critical factor in permanently escaping abuse.  
           Because acts of violence can often follow a victim to work,  
          basic accommodations, such as providing a new telephone  
          extension or work email address, can help protect abuse victims  
          and the employers.  In addition, supporters argue, victims who  
          fear adverse employment actions are more hesitant to report and  
          work with law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution  


                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 4

          of domestic abuse crimes.

           Extending Discrimination And Retaliation Protections To Domestic  
          Violence, Sexual Assault, And Stalking Victims  . Existing law  
          prohibits discrimination and retaliation against employees who  
          are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault for taking  
          time off from work to obtain judicial relief or to seek other  
          relief.  This bill would extend these protections to stalking  
          victims.  Independently of the need to take time off, this bill  
          would also provide discrimination and retaliation protections  
          for employees whose status as a victim is known by the employer.  

           Background on Workplace Problems Suffered By Victims of Domestic  
          Violence.  A 2003 report titled "Women's Health: Findings from  
          the California Women's Health Survey, 1997-2003," (CWHS) found  
          that one quarter to one-third of all adult women in the United  
          States (U.S.) have been physically abused by an intimate partner  
          during their lifetime.  The CWHS study also notes that  
          approximately 40 percent of California women experience physical  
          intimate partner violence in their lifetimes.  

          The National Partnership for Women & Families (NPWF) states that  
          incidents of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking  
          affect a large number of workers.  According to NPWF, the loss  
          of employment can be devastating for domestic violence survivors  
          because they often need financial security to ensure their  
          safety and the safety of their children.  They note that data  
          has shown that victims of domestic violence often stay with  
          their abuser because they are financially dependent on that  
          person.  A 2005 study published in the Journal of Occupational  
          Health Psychology titled "Domestic Violence and Employment: A  
          Qualitative Study" (DVE Study) illuminates the consequences that  
          domestic violence can have on women's employment.  The DVE Study  
          found that domestic violence has an effect on women's job  
          performance and that women reported missing work, were  
          terminated from a job or resigned as a direct result of  

          According to the DVE Study, an employer's response to their  
          employee's disclosure of domestic violence victimization plays  
          an important role in whether or not an employee chooses to  
          inform a supervisor or co-worker of her abuse.  The DVE Study  
          notes that employed domestic violence victims often fear job  
          loss, a sense of shame, or a belief that they can handle work  


                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 5

          and their abusive home situation without help from someone at  
          work.  Unfortunately, data from the DVE Study shows that  
          significant levels of stress and psychological discomfort that  
          result from stalking, or an abuser's job interference behaviors,  
          including showing up at the worksite and incessant calling, can  
          affect an employee's job performance.  

          The DVE Study suggests that employer-based supports primarily  
          lead to short-term job retention, but an employee's concern  
          about safety often thwarts the long term benefits associated  
          with employer or co-worker support. 

          The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) notes  
          that 37 percent of women have indicated that domestic violence  
          has had a negative impact on their job performance.  NCADV  
          states that women who have been raped or sexually assaulted  
          report diminished work function and approximately one-fourth of  
          the 1 million women who are stalked each year report missing an  
          average of 11 days as a result of stalking.  A 2003 report from  
          the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services titled "Cost of  
          Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States"  
          (HHS Report) found that intimate partner violence (IPV) victims  
          lose approximately 8 million days of paid work annual; the  
          equivalent of 32,000 full time jobs.  The HHS Report states that  
          the costs of intimate partner rape, physical assault, and  
          stalking exceeds $5.8 billion each year, including $0.9 billion  
          in lifetime earnings lost by victims of IPV homicide.    

          A 2009 Report titled "Domestic Violence and Work: Legal and  
          Business Perspectives," (DVW Report) asserts that domestic  
          violence causes problems for employers as well as employees,  
          including, economic loss due to lost productivity,  
          administrative difficulties that result from employees who take  
          unplanned time off, higher insurance premiums and the  
          possibilities of lawsuits.  The DVW Report asserts that research  
          has shown that one out of every five employed adults has  
          personally experienced domestic violence and 96 percent of  
          victims have experienced trouble at work related to domestic  
          violence.  In addition, the DVW Report, similar to the  
          aforementioned DVE Study, notes that employees experience  
          decreased productivity during and after actual or threatened  
          violence and may require time off from work, or flexible work  
          arrangements to address safety concerns, medical needs and legal  
          issues arising out of or related to domestic violence. 


                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 6

          According to the DVW Report, safety planning by employees and  
          employers is necessary to address domestic violence at work  
          because the effects of domestic violence spill over into the  
          workplace even if the specific acts of violence are not  
          perpetrated at work.  The DVW Report also states that safety  
          planning for employees includes communicating with colleagues  
          and supervisors about one's situation, changing the location or  
          schedule of work as well and work contact information, such as  
          email addresses and telephone numbers or seeking a protection  
          order that includes the worksite.  Safety planning for employers  
          can also include the implementation of a written policy  
          establishing protocols for responding to and supporting  
          employees who are victims of domestic violence.   

          Unfortunately, the DVW Report states that there is often little  
          or no structure in place at work for employees who want to  
          disclose their status as a victim of domestic violence to a  
          supervisor or coworker's attention.  According to the United  
          States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), over 70 percent of U.S.  
          workplaces do not have a formal program or policy that addresses  
          workplace violence.  BLS notes that, of the 30 percent of  
          establishments that have formal programs or policies in place,  
          only 44 percent address domestic violence.  

           Recent Controversy Highlights Issues Raised By The Bill.   
          Supporters argue that the need for the bill is illustrated by a  
          recent controversy that has attracted media attention.   
          According to a Los Angeles Times report, "A veteran teacher at a  
          Catholic school has lost her job because school officials are  
          worried her ex-husband, now serving a jail sentence for domestic  
          abuse and stalking, will pose a danger to students and teachers  
          when he is released. ? "Please understand that this was a very  
          difficult decision to make, and we are deeply, deeply sorry  
          about this situation," the diocese's director of schools wrote.  
          "We will continue to pray for you and your family."   
          Charlesworth said Friday that she and her children are being  
          punished for her ex-husband's volatile behavior.  She said she  
          is unsure how she will support the family. "I was shocked that  
          they were going to leave me without a job," she said. "It was  
          devastating." ? After the case was reported this week on local  
          TV, Rodrigo Valdiva, chancellor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of  
          San Diego, issued a statement saying the diocese "has acted  
          responsibly in addressing the Holy Trinity School personnel  
          matter with concern for the safety and well-being of both Carie  
          Charlesworth and the children enrolled at the school." ? Carie  


                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 7

          Charlesworth has a bachelor's degree, a master's degree and a  
          teaching credential, but teaching jobs are scarce in the current  
          economy. After 14 years in diocese schools, including the last  
          four at Holy Trinity, she was earning $37,000 a year.  "I'm just  
          trying to figure what to do now," she said. She considered  
          moving away from San Diego County or possibly going back to  
          college to start a new career - maybe nursing - but said that  
          she has realized that both ideas are financially impossible. The  
          couple has sons 9 and 11 years old and twin 7-year-old girls.   
          Under the divorce decree, Carie Charlesworth, who lives in  
          Spring Valley, has custody of the children, but Martin  
          Charlesworth has visitation privileges.  "We'll probably be in a  
          shelter after he's released," she said. "But we can't live life  
          in fear.  The kids need a normal life.  Hopefully, he'll abide  
          by his probation report."  (Teacher At Catholic School Loses Job  
          Over Ex-Husband's Actions, Los Angeles Times, June 14,  

           Existing Law Allows Time Off Work And Prohibits Retaliation For  
          Exercising That Right  .  Under existing law, an employer may not  
          discharge, discriminate or retaliate against an employee who is  
          a victim of domestic violence or a victim of sexual assault for  
          taking time off from work to obtain or attempt to obtain any  
          relief, including, but not limited to, a temporary restraining  
          order, restraining order, or other injunctive relief, to help  
          ensure the health, safety, or welfare of the victim or his or  
          her child.

          In addition, existing law prohibits an employer with 25 or more  
          employees from discharging or in any manner discriminating or  
          retaliating against an employee who is a victim of domestic  
          violence or a victim of sexual assault for taking time off from  
          work to attend to any of the following: (1) To seek medical  
          attention for injuries caused by domestic violence or sexual  
          assault; (2) To obtain services from a domestic violence  
          shelter, program, or rape crisis center as a result of domestic  
          violence or sexual assault; (3) To obtain psychological  
          counseling related to an experience of domestic violence or  
          sexual assault; (4) To participate in safety planning and take  
          other actions to increase safety from future domestic violence  
          or sexual assault, including temporary or permanent relocation.

          Violation of these statutes is remedied by reinstatement and  
          reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the  


                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 8

          acts of the employer via either a complaint to the Division of  
          Labor Standards Enforcement of the Department of Industrial  
          Relations or by court action.

           This Bill Requires The Same Types of Proof of Domestic Violence  
          As Currently Apply To Existing Job Protections For These  
          Victims.   Victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are  
          currently protected against discrimination and retaliation for  
          taking time off work to participate in judicial proceedings or  
          to obtain other forms of relief.  To ensure that these rights  
          are exercised only by those who need them, existing law provides  
          that employers may rely on certain documents verifying the  
          victim's status, such as police report, court order, or  
          documentation by specified professionals.  This bill likewise  
          provides that an employee who requests reasonable accommodation  
          may be required to provide his or her employer with identical  
          evidence of need. This approach is also consistent with the  
          documentation required by SB 612 (Leno), a measure the Committee  
          recently approved to provide relief from residential leases for  
          DV victims.

           Similar Laws In Other States.   Connecticut state law (Public Act  
          No. 10-144) 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.  The state defines as 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 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.  

          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 addresses, screening the employee's telephone calls,  
          changing the work location for the employee, installing locks  


                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 9

          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 abuse by providing a written statement from  
          the employee, or other sources including, police or court  

          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  

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :  A coalition of business interests  
          filed opposition to the bill, as they resolutely have in  
          response to prior measures, arguing:

               [T]he expanded protections under SB 400 will increase the  
               already significant burden on employers to conduct business  
               in California and will expose such employers to costly  

               SB 400 seeks to prevent employment discrimination or  
               retaliation against employees who are victims of domestic  
               abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.   Unlike other existing  
               protected classifications under the Fair Employment and  
               Housing Act ("FEHA") that are more objective, determining  
               who is a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or  
               stalking is a daunting task for employers.  For example, at  
               what point does a marital dispute turn into domestic abuse?  
                How many phone calls per day from a significant other  
               qualifies as "stalking"?  SB 400 will force an employer  
               into a judicial role to determine when a crime of domestic  
               abuse, stalking, or sexual assault has occurred for  
               purposes of triggering the proposed protection provided by  


                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 10
               SB 400.  Employers are not in a position to make such  
               decisions and should not be forced into making one by this  

               Moreover, SB 400 will require employers to inquire into an  
               employee's personal life, outside of work, thereby placing  
               them in a legal predicament.  California Labor Code section  
               96(k) precludes employers from taking any action based upon  
               off-duty conduct.  Article 1, Section 1 of the California  
               Constitution also recognizes that employees have a legal  
               right to privacy in their personal lives and relationships.  
               SB 400 would blur the distinction between personal and  
               workplace issues by forcing employers to determine if  
               activities in an employee's personal life have triggered  
               the proposed protections under SB 400.  

               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  
               discriminating or retaliating against an employee of  
               domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault if the employer  
               simply "knows" of the employee's protected status.  Courts  
               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.  

               SB 400 also exposes employers of any size to costly  
               litigation for any alleged violation of the provisions of  
               the bill, including an employee only right to attorney's  
               fees. Currently, existing law requires similar employees to  
               resolve any issue with the Division of Labor Standards  
               Enforcement ("DLSE") through an administrative hearing.   
               See Labor Code section 230.1.  Creating a private right of  
               action with employee only attorney's fees will incentivize  
               frivolous litigation.  Moreover, there is no evidence that  
               such complaints cannot be efficiently handled through the  


                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 11


               Finally, there are already significant protections in place  
               for victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, and  
               stalking.  Labor Code sections 230-230.2 preclude an  
               employer from discriminating or retaliating against an  
               employee who is a victim of domestic abuse or sexual  
               assault and provides the employee with an indefinite  
               protected leave of absence to seek medical attention,  
               services, counseling, or attend criminal proceedings.   
               Labor Code sections 132(a) and 3553 extend workers'  
               compensation benefits to employees who are victims of crime  
               at the workplace, and prevent an employer from  
               discriminating on that basis.  Code of Civil Procedure  
               section 527.8 allows an employer to obtain a restraining  
               order on behalf of an employee who has suffered "unlawful  
               violence" or has been threatened with "unlawful violence."  
               There is simply no evidence to suggest that the additional  
               protections proposed by SB 400 are necessary in light of  
               the existing protections, especially in comparison to the  
               significant burden and cost of litigation SB 400 will  
               create for employers.

          The Civil Justice Association of California adds:

               Senate Bill 400 would expand existing protections afforded  
               employees from employment discrimination or retaliation who  
               are victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While the  
               intent of SB 400 is laudable, we are concerned that the  
               provisions in the bill may put employers in the impossible  
               position of violating an employee's privacy in order to  
               comply with the bill's requirements or face expensive  

               For example, the bill provides that an employer shall not  
               take an adverse action against a person because of his or  
               her "known status." (Page 3, line 26). The term "known  
               status" is ambiguous and would result in having an employer  
               inquire into an employee's personal life because courts  
               have found that "knowledge" means "actual and constructive  
               knowledge." Constructive knowledge is that which the  
               employer knew or should have known 

               Although SB 400 requires a victim to disclose his or her  
               status when asking for an accommodation at work, for an  


                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 12

               employer to appropriately act under the bill's  
               requirements, the employer would need to constantly delve  
               into personal information that otherwise would be off  
               limits. Employers are not allowed to invade an employee's  
               privacy, Labor Code section 96(k) prohibits employers from  
               taking action based upon off-duty conduct. 

               California law requires employers to provide a safe  
               workplace.  Employers must protect their employees from  
               threatened or actual violence, or they face potential civil  
               liability. This bill does not provide for the consideration  
               of other employees in the provision of accommodations.

               Finally, SB 400 creates new lawsuits against employers for  
               failing to provide a "reasonable accommodation" (Page 5,  
               lines 38-40). This bill puts employers in a legal Catch-22  
               by exposing them to liability for infringing on an  
               employee's right of privacy when making job-related  

           Author's Proposed Amendments.   In response to opposition  
          concerns, the author helpfully proposes to amend the bill by  
          making it abundantly clear that its protection extends only  
          where the victim has provided notice of his or her status to the  
          employer or the employer has actual knowledge of the status.  

          Specifically, the amendment would be, to strike out "known" on  
          page 3, line 26, and on line 27 insert the following after  
          "stalking:"  if the victim provides notice to the employer of  
          the status or the employer has actual knowledge of the status. 
          Prior Related Legislation  .  AB 1740 (V.M. Perez) of 20112 was a  
          substantively identical measure which passed this Committee but  
          was held in Assembly Appropriations.  SB 1745 (Kuehl) of 2006  
          was similar to this bill, but took a different approach, adding  
          a provision to the Civil Code that declared it against the  
          public policy of the state for any 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.  


                                                                  SB 400
                                                                  Page 13



           A Better Balance
          ACLU of California
          The Work and Family Legal Center
          Alameda County Family Justice Center
          American Civil Liberties Union of California
          Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach
          California Communities United Institute
          California Immigrant Policy Center
          California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
          California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
          California Legislative Women's Caucus
          California Nurses Association
          California Police Chiefs Associations, Inc.
          California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
          California School Employees Association
          California Women's Law Center
          Center for Domestic Peace
          Centro Legal de la Raza
          Child Abuse Listening Mediation
          Community United Against Violence
          Crime Victims United of California
          Domestic Violence Solutions for Santa Barbara County
          Emergency Shelter Program
          Equal Rights Advocates
          Exelligence Learning Corporation
          Futures Without Violence
          Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
          Interface Children & Family Services
          Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles
          La Casa de las Madres
          Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
          Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
          Legal Momentum - The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund
          Mountain Crisis Services
          Natinal Association of Social Workers - California
          Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
          Organización en California de Líderes Campesinas, Inc.
          Peace Officers Research Association of California
          Peace Over Violence
          Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
          South Asian Network


                                                                 SB 400
                                                                  Page 14

          United Automotive Workers, Local 2865
          U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce
          Violence Prevent Coalition
          Walnut Avenue Women's Center
          Western Center on Law & Poverty
          Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
          Women's Crisis Support - Defensa de Mujeres
          Women's Employment Rights Clinic - Golden Gate University School  
          of Law
          Women's Foundation of California


           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 & Santa Barbara Counties
          National Federation of Independent Business
          South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
          Western Electrical Contractors Association, Inc.
          Analysis Prepared by  :  Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334