BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 556
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 556 (Corbett)
As Amended July 1, 2013
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :24-13
JUDICIARY 7-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Alejo, Chau, | | |
| |Dickinson, Garcia, | | |
| |Muratsuchi, Stone | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Wagner, Gorell, | | |
| |Maienschein | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits nongovernmental persons or entities
contracting with public agencies from displaying a seal or
emblem on a uniform or vehicle, as specified, unless a
disclosure statement is also conspicuously displayed identifying
the uniform wearer or vehicle operator as not a government
employee. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes it unlawful for a person, firm, corporation, or
association that is a nongovernmental entity and contracts to
perform labor or services for a public agency to display on a
vehicle a seal, emblem, insignia, trade or brand name, or any
other term, symbol, or content that reasonably could be
interpreted or construed as implying that the labor or
services are being provided by employees of the public agency,
unless the vehicle conspicuously displays the following
disclosure: "THE OPERATOR OF THIS VEHICLE IS NOT A GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE."
2)Makes it unlawful for a person or an employee of a person,
firm, corporation, or association that is a nongovernmental
entity and contracts to perform labor or services for a public
agency to wear a uniform bearing a seal, emblem, insignia,
trade or brand name, or any other term, symbol, or content
that together with the appearance of the uniform reasonably
could be interpreted or construed as implying that the labor
SB 556
Page 2
or services are being provided by employees of the public
agency, unless the uniform conspicuously displays the
following disclosure: "NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE."
3)Clarifies that the term "conspicuously displays" means to
display in a font size that is at least the same size as the
largest font size otherwise displayed on the vehicle or
uniform, in a manner that clearly calls attention to the
language, and located in close proximity to the seal, emblem,
insignia, trade or brand name, or any other term, symbol, or
content as described in this section, so as to be clearly
associated with that seal, emblem, insignia, trade or brand
name, or any other term, symbol, or content.
4)Clarifies that an identifying mark affixed to a uniform as
required by state or federal law, and a local agency
regulating the activity of the person, firm, corporation, or
association shall not be construed as implying that the labor
or services are being provided by employees of the public
agency.
5)Provides that violations of this act shall be subject to the
remedies provided in the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)
(Title 1.5 (commencing with Section 1750) of Part 4), and that
the duties, rights, and remedies provided in this bill are in
addition to any other duties, rights, and remedies provided by
state law.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill, co-sponsored by the California Labor
Federation and the California Professional Firefighters, seeks
to prohibit private contractors who contract with public
agencies from displaying a seal or emblem on a uniform or
vehicle, as specified, that reasonably could be interpreted as
implying that the contracted labor or services are being
provided by employees of the public agency-unless, that is, a
disclosure statement is also conspicuously displayed on the
uniform or vehicle identifying the private contractor as "Not A
Government Employee." As recently amended, violations of this
bill may be enforced using the remedies provided by the CLRA.
According to the author, this bill is needed to ensure that
members of the public can visually distinguish between
SB 556
Page 3
government employees and non-government employees who
increasingly are subcontracted to perform traditional public
services once almost exclusively the domain of true public
employees. Proponents assert that the public has the right to
know if a particular worker providing a service that appears
public in nature is in fact a public employee, or is instead an
independent contractor, subcontracted worker, or other
non-governmental employee not working for a public agency. This
matters, they contend, because in certain situations, the public
employee is required to have greater training and is held to a
higher degree of accountability to the public by virtue of being
an employee of a public agency, rather than that of a private
employer or as an independent contractor. Accordingly, the bill
seeks to prevent confusion or misperceptions that result,
proponents contend, when private contractors hired by public
agencies perform community work or services and use uniforms or
vehicles appearing very similar to those used only by employees
of the public agency. In those circumstances, this bill seeks
to promote transparency by requiring the uniform or vehicle
conspicuously display a disclosure that the contractor or
employee is not a government employee.
Under this bill, a person or company that is a nongovernmental
entity and contracts to perform labor or services for a public
agency must abide by specific disclosure requirements with
respect to that entity's vehicles and uniforms. Unless the
vehicle at issue conspicuously displays the words "THE OPERATOR
OF THIS VEHICLE IS NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE," the contracting
nongovernmental entity may not display on the vehicle any seal,
emblem, or other content that "reasonably could be interpreted
or construed as implying that" the service is being provided by
a public employee. Similarly, unless the uniform at issue
conspicuously displays the words "NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE,"
the contracting entity and its workers are prohibited from
wearing any uniform that displays any seal, emblem, or other
content that reasonably could be interpreted or construed as
implying that the labor or service is being provided by a public
employee.
Violations of the requirements proposed by this bill may be
enforced using the remedies provided by the CLRA (Civil Code
Section 1750 et seq.) The CLRA establishes a nonexclusive
statutory remedy for unfair methods of competition and unfair
acts or practices in various consumer transactions, as
SB 556
Page 4
specified. According to the author, the CLRA offers an
appropriate set of remedies for violations of the bill-remedies
which prioritize disclosure and display requirements over the
recovery of money damages. Specifically, the CLRA allows an
action for injunctive relief to enjoin acts that do not comply
with the bill, in this case non-compliance with the uniform and
vehicle-related display and disclosure requirements of the bill.
In addition, the CLRA requires notice and opportunity to
correct for a period of thirty days before any action for
damages is allowed, including cases where the plaintiff seeks to
amend a complaint for injunctive relief to include a request for
damages.
The recent amendments replace the previous contents of the bill,
which would have made public agencies that contract for services
with a contractor jointly and severally liable for any damages
caused during performance of the contract if, at the time of the
damage, the contractor was authorized or required by the public
agency to wear a uniform or operate a vehicle that by its
similar appearance would have caused members of the public to
believe that the contractor was an agent of the public entity.
In short, the bill no longer provides any rule for ostensible
agency liability, and instead simply requires disclosure
statements on vehicles and uniforms used by nongovernmental
entities if specified conditions are true. Because of these
amendments, the Civil Justice Association of California has
officially removed its opposition to the bill.
This bill is opposed by a number of groups representing local
government entities, including, among others, the California
State Association of Counties and the League of California
Cities. These opponents contend that they are unaware of any
problem associated with a private contractor wearing a similar
uniform or having a similar vehicle that causes confusion for
the public, and that the bill is a solution in search of a
problem. Furthermore, opponents contend that allowing similar
uniforms and vehicles to be used by contractors should be a
matter of local control. According to the joint letter
submitted by these opponents, "Many public agencies that
contract for services specify uniform requirements and/or
affixing logos to a vehicle in their written contracts with a
service provider. These uniform requirements are oftentimes
done for the purpose of ensuring that the public knows who the
contractor is serving and for identifying regional operations
SB 556
Page 5
during a major disaster or mutual aid request from a public
agency. This bill would eliminate public agencies' ability to
determine what works best locally."
The bill is also opposed by American Medical Response (AMR),
California's largest provider of 9-1-1 emergency ambulance
services and private employer of paramedics and emergency
medical technicians. AMR states: "The sponsors of the bill
fail to provide any evidence that the current appearance of our
workforce uniforms or ambulances poses any threat to patient or
public safety. When an AMR crew arrives at the scene of a
medical emergency, it is clear who they work for. Our logo and
name are prominently displayed in multiple locations on our
ambulances. AMR patches are clearly visible on our crew's
uniforms, and the patient ultimately receives a bill issued by
AMR with our phone number and address. We also receive
thousands of letters every year from patients thanking us for
our services which clearly indicates the patient was aware that
the crew treating them was working for AMR. In fact, the
utilization of county patches and identifying marks, which are
used in tandem with AMR patches and logos, provide assurance to
the patient and family that we are responding under the
authority of the county, and are licensed to practice medicine
in their jurisdiction."
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0001370