BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 272
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB
272 (Lackey)
As Enrolled August 19, 2015
2/3 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
AB 272
Page 3
extending 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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
This bill would impose, for the first time, liability upon
public entities for claims of discrimination brought by
volunteer peace officers.
Last year I signed AB 1443, which afforded protection against
harassment to all volunteers, including peace officers. That
bill makes sense, but I am not convinced that the expanded
liability included in this bill does.
AB 272
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by:Benjamin Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0002288