BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 666
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 21, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 666 (Steinberg) - As Amended: August 5, 2013
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:7-0
Labor 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits retaliation against an employee seeking to
exercise their employment rights, based on their citizenship
status. Specifically, this bill:
1)Stipulates that a business license is subject to suspension or
revocation if an employee attempts to exercise any employment
right or other condition protected under state law and the
employer (licensee) retaliates or threatens to retaliate
against the employee based on the employee's citizenship or
immigration status.
2)Stipulates that a member of the State Bar is subject to
suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for reporting or
threatening to report to a government agency the immigration
status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative
action, or of his or her family member, because the witness or
party has exercised an employment right.
1)Adds a prohibition against retaliation or adverse action to
the existing law forbidding any person to discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment because the employee
or applicant engaged in any conduct delineated in Labor Code
Chapter 4 (enforcement of labor standards) or Chapter 5
(political activity), or because the employee has filed a bona
fide complaint or claim to his or her rights under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner, or because the
employee has initiated a private action pursuant to Labor Code
Section 2699, or has testified or is about to testify in a
proceeding pursuant to that section, or because of the
exercise by the employee or applicant for employment on behalf
SB 666
Page 2
of himself, herself, or others of any rights afforded him or
her. In addition to other remedies available, an employer who
violates this section is liable for a civil penalty not
exceeding $10,000 per employee for each violation of this
section.
3)Expands the protected conducted per (3) to include an employee
making a written or oral complaint that he or she is owned
unpaid wages.
4)Provides that an individual does not have to first exhaust
administrative remedies or procedures prior to bringing a
civil action under Labor Code, unless the code section under
which the action is brought expressly requires exhaustion.
5)Prohibits any person acting on behalf of an employer from
making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy
preventing an employee from disclosing information to a
government or law enforcement agency. Current law contains
these prohibitions with respect to the employer.
6)Prohibits an employer or any person acting on behalf of the
employer from providing information to, or testifying before,
any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or
inquiry.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), within the
Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), and the courts will
see increased costs to the extent additional complaints are
filed with the Labor Commissioner and civil actions are
commenced. The DIR anticipates that the bill's provisions will
deter a large majority of potential violations. The department
estimates that, if only a small fraction of undocumented
workers take action for alleged violations, however, about 800
cases could be filed with the DLSE or the courts. Assuming
five percent of these complaints are filed with DLSE, and 80%
are accepted for investigation (the same percentage as for
current claims), there would be about 30 additional cases
annually. The department believes that this total would be
further reduced by two-thirds due to the bill's provision that
administrative remedies not be exhausted prior to bringing a
civil action. The result will be only minor additional special
SB 666
Page 3
fund costs (less than $100,000 annually) associated with a few
additional complaint investigations.[Labor Enforcement and
Compliance Fund]
2)Costs in court time for the over 700 complaints filed with the
court instead of DIR would likely total several hundred
thousand to a few million dollars annually. These costs are
covered in the budgets of the trial courts. Though trial court
budgets have been significantly constrained in recent years,
this relatively small number of cases, on a statewide basis
would not increase pressure on trial court budgets.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, "Our current state statutory
scheme does little to deter a law-breaking boss or business
from using the immigration status of the worker, co-worker, or
family member to create an atmosphere of fear to prevent
workers from demanding their rights in the workplace. Our
state statutes do not deter an unscrupulous employer from
retaliating against a worker by calling immigration
authorities when that worker demands that the employer comply
with California's labor laws. This bill is needed to empower
workers to exercise their rights under California law without
fear that employers will retaliate by reporting their
immigration status or that of their family members to
government officials. [This bill] will deter unscrupulous
employers from violating the rights of immigrant workers
laboring in California and therefore lift the veil of silence
in the workplace."
2)There is no known opposition to this bill .
3)Related Legislation . AB 263 (Hernández), a similar bill, is
pending in Senate Appropriations.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081