BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 272
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
272 (Lackey)
As Amended April 15, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
|----------------+------+--------------------------+-----------------|
|Labor |7-0 |Roger Hernández, Harper, | |
| | |Chu, Low, McCarty, | |
| | |Patterson, Thurmond | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------------+-----------------|
|Judiciary |10-0 |Mark Stone, Wagner, | |
| | |Alejo, Chau, Chiu, | |
| | |Gallagher, Cristina | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Maienschein, O'Donnell | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------------+-----------------|
|Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, Bloom, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, Chang, | |
| | |Daly, Eggman, Gallagher, | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Quirk, Rendon, | |
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Provides that a person deputized or appointed by the
proper authority as a reserve deputy sheriff or a reserve city
AB 272
Page 2
police officer, is an employee of the county, city, city and
county, town, district or other such proper authority for all
purposes of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
EXISTING LAW prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of
race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical
disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic
information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender
expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran
status.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill will result in minor and absorbable costs to
the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. In addition, this
bill will result in unknown, potentially significant costs to
local governments related to civil litigation.
COMMENTS: FEHA prohibits employment discrimination on the bases
of enumerated protected categories. However, the FEHA definition
of "employee" does not actually define who is an employee under
the law; it merely excludes specified individuals from the
definition. However, the FEHA regulations define an employee as
"[a]ny individual under the direction and control of an employer
under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship,
express or implied, oral or written." Therefore, FEHA provides
little or no protection to individuals who do not meet the
definition of "employee" under the law.
One of the most notable recent cases arising under FEHA was
Estrada v. City of Los Angeles, 218 Cal. App. 4th 143 (2013), a
case involving a claim for disability discrimination under FEHA by
a reserve officer for the Los Angeles Police Department. The
court held that Estrada was an uncompensated volunteer rather than
an employee, despite the fact that such officers were deemed by
the City to be "employees" for the limited purpose of extending
AB 272
Page 3
workers' compensation benefits to them in the event they were
injured while performing their duties. Therefore, he was not able
to pursue a discrimination claim under FEHA.
This bill responds directly to the Estrada decision by
specifically providing that specified reserve peace officers are
considered to be "employees" for purposes of FEHA. According to
the author, this bill would ensure that reserve peace officers are
protected under FEHA and would protect against their mistreatment
and discrimination within the workplace.
The California Reserve Peace Officers Association supports this
bill, arguing that despite the fact that reserve peace officers
perform "the same duties and functions as full-time peace
officers," they are vulnerable to termination, discrimination and
harassment that should be viewed as unlawful.
There is no opposition on file.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0000212