BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 404
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 14, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 404 (Jackson) - As Amended: July 3, 2013
Policy Committee: Labor and
Employment Vote: 5-2
Judiciary 7-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill adds "familial status" to the protected categories of
the employment provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA). Specifically, this bill:
Defines familial status as an individual who provides medical or
supervisory care to a family member. For the purposes of this
definition, family member means any of the following: child,
parent, spouse, domestic partner, and a parent-in-law.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)GF administrative costs, of approximately $50,000, to the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to enforce
this measure.
2)Potential, GF administrative costs, likely $100,000, to DFEH
to conduct a regulatory process to implement this measure.
Regulations may be needed if questions arise regarding the
definitions of medical and supervisory.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Under FEHA, individuals are protected against
discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation
and services provided by business establishments on the basis
of specified characteristics, including age, ancestry, sex
(gender), race, color, national origin, religion, sexual
orientation, marital status, genetic information, medical
condition, and disability.
SB 404
Page 2
Individuals who claim discrimination may file a complaint with
the DFEH within one year of the alleged incident. They can
also directly seek remedies via a lawsuit filed with the
court.
Existing law establishes the California Family Rights Act
(CFRA), which requires employers with 50 or more employees to
provide, upon request, up to 12 weeks of protected unpaid
leave during any 12-month period for specified purposes,
including childbirth; placement of a child with respect to
adoption or foster care; care of a parent, spouse or child
with a serious health condition; the employee's own serious
health condition.
2)Purpose . According to the author, "Although discrimination
based on 'familial status' is explicitly prohibited under the
housing provisions of the FEHA, the same is not true under the
employment provisions. Presently, the FEHA does not
adequately and explicitly protect California workers from
being discriminated against at work based on their familial
status. Yet research shows that employees are regularly
discriminated against because of 'familial status.' The bill
is solely an anti-discrimination measure: It does not call
for any employee entitlements or any additional leave related
to family responsibilities. The bill also has no effect on
current law that prohibits familial status discrimination in
housing."
3)Opposition . Several opponents, including the CalChamber, the
California Restaurant Association, the California Hotel and
Lodging Association, the California Farm Bureau, and the
California Manufacturers and Technology Association, argue
providing specified employee protections based upon familial
status unfairly subjects them to costly litigation.
Specifically, these organizations state in a coalition letter,
"The term 'medical' care is undefined and therefore could be
liberally interpreted to include such tasks as administering
over the counter medication once a day or even driving a
listed family member to a doctor's appointment on a quarterly
basis. Moreover, 'supervisory' care is also ambiguous and
would expand this proposed classification to employees who are
not actually providing any care to a covered family member,
but rather 'supervising' the care the family member receives.
SB 404
Page 3
Furthermore, SB 404 applies to anyone who is perceived to
provide familial care or associated with someone who provides
familial care. Such a broad application of a protected
classification will essentially encompass almost all employees
in the workforce and, therefore, will hamper an employer's
ability to manage their business, as any adverse employment
action the employer takes against an employee could be
potentially challenged as discriminatory on the basis of
'familial status.'"
4)Previous legislation .
a) AB 1999 (Brownley), similar to this bill, was held on
the Senate Appropriations Committee's Suspense File in
August 2012.
b) AB 2039 (Swanson) amended the CFRA by expanding
permissible family and medical leave to cover care for an
independent adult child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild,
domestic partner, or parent-in-law with a serious health
condition. This bill was held on the Senate Appropriations
Committee's Suspense File in August 2012.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081