BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 496
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 496 (Wright)
As Amended September 6, 2013
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :34-0
JUDICIARY 10-0 APPROPRIATIONS 13-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Wagner, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Alejo, Chau, Dickinson, | |Bradford, |
| |Garcia, Gorell, | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| |Maienschein, Muratsuchi, | |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, |
| |Stone | |Holden, Linder, Pan, |
| | | |Quirk, Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
| | |Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Revises whistleblower protection. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Provides that the State Personnel Board shall render decisions
on consolidated complaints under the Whistleblower Protection
Act (WPA) within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the
hearing or investigation, except that the period shall not
exceed six months from the date of the order of consolidation
unless extended by the board for a period of not more than 45
additional days from the expiration of the six-month period.
2)Clarifies existing law that an action for damages pursuant to
the WPA is exempt from the presentation requirements of the
Government Claims Act.
3)Prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee
because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or
may disclose information to a government or law enforcement
agency, or to a person with authority over the employee or
another employee who has the authority to investigate,
discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, if the
employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information
discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a
violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal
SB 496
Page 2
rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the
information is part of the employee's job duties.
4)Prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for
disclosing, or refusing to participate in an activity that
would result in, a violation of or noncompliance with a local
rule or regulation.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Minor absorbable costs to the SPB and the Department of Human
Resources, as the bill is generally consistent with current
practice and existing caseloads are not significant. According
to the SPB's most recent Whistleblower Complaint Report, for
2011, 62 whistleblower retaliation complaints were filed. Of
those, 12 were accepted, of which nine were dismissed and
three were consolidated with a pending evidentiary hearing.
2)Any costs to local governments will not be state reimbursable.
COMMENTS : This measure clarifies rights and procedures under
the California Whistleblower Protection Act and related laws.
Supporters argue that clarification will improve protections and
give greater guidance to parties, administrative agencies and
the courts. Although as amended the bill no longer codifies the
State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court
(Arbuckle) 2009 45 Cal. 4th 963.case, neither does it disturb
the court's holding.
The bill further clarifies that notice of WPA claims is
accomplished by filing with the SPB, obviating the need for
additional presentment under the Government Claims Act,
consistently with existing law.
Finally, the bill makes prudent changes to the corresponding
anti-retaliation provisions of the Labor Code so that complaints
about alleged violations of local law are covered, as well as
internal complaints and perceived or anticipatory retaliation.
Consistently with existing law, these claims are not subject to
administrative exhaustion.
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
SB 496
Page 3
FN: 0002600