BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     AB 302


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  April 29, 2015


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                                 Jimmy Gomez, Chair


          AB  
          302 (Cristina Garcia) - As Amended April 20, 2015


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Education                      |Vote:|6 - 1        |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  YesReimbursable:   
          Yes


          SUMMARY: 


          This bill requires schools operated by school districts, County  
          Offices of Education (COEs), California School for the Blind and  
          School for the Deaf, and charter schools to provide reasonable  








                                                                     AB 302


                                                                    Page  2





          accommodations to breastfeeding students to express breast milk,  
          breastfeed, or other address other needs related to  
          breastfeeding. These requirements apply where at least one  
          lactating student is attending. Specifically, this bill:


          1)Defines reasonable accommodations as access to a private and  
            secure room (other than a restroom) to express milk or  
            breastfeed a child. Further requires access to a power source  
            and a place to store breast milk safely.  


          2)Requires that a lactating student be provided a reasonable  
            amount of time to express milk or breastfeed. Specifies a  
            student shall not incur an academic penalty as a result of her  
            use of the accommodations, as specified, and shall be provided  
            the opportunity to make up work missed.


          3)Applies the requirements of the bill to an expedited Uniform  
            Complaint Procedures (UCP) process.  Specifically, requires  
            the local education agency (LEA), within five days of receipt  
            of a complaint, to conduct a complete investigation and issue  
            a written decision.  Further authorizes a complaint to be  
            appealed to the California Department of Education (CDE), who  
            shall issue a written decision within 30 days of receipt of  
            the appeal.   


          FISCAL EFFECT:


          1)Unknown Proposition 98/GF state mandated costs for schools to  
            provide specific accommodations, such as access to a place to  
            safely store breast-milk. There are approximately 4,100  
            schools serving grades 7 through 12.  Statewide costs could  
            range from $200,000 to $400,000 to provide a place to store  
            milk, such as a small refrigerator. Actual costs will depend  
            on the size and types of claims districts submit to the  








                                                                     AB 302


                                                                    Page  3





            Commission on State Mandates (CSM). 


          2)Unknown Proposition 98/GF state mandated costs to expand the  
            existing UCP mandate to require LEAs to investigate and  
            respond to complaints of non-compliance within five days.  In  
            2012, there were approximately 35,000 teen births to women  
            ages 15-19 and teens under 15 combined. There are 1,044 school  
            districts in California.  For illustration, if 5% of districts  
            filed cost claims similar to those filed under the existing  
            mandate, costs could range from $70,000 to $100,000.  The  
            existing UCP mandate is currently included in the K-12 Mandate  
            Block Grant.  If the CSM determines the requirements of this  
            bill impose a higher level of service, this could place  
            pressure on the Legislature to increase funding under the K-12  
            Mandate Block Grant. 


          COMMENTS:


          1)Purpose. The author's office states, "Under federal Title IX  
            and the California Sex Equity in Education Act, pregnant  
            students and those recovering from childbirth-related  
            conditions must be provided with the same accommodations and  
            support services available to other students with temporary  
            medical conditions."  The author states that pregnant and  
            parenting students should not be forced to make decisions  
            about where to attend school, or whether to breastfeed their  
            child solely based on whether they can access appropriate  
            lactation accommodations at school. California law should be  
            clear that accommodations for lactating students include  
            access to a private, secure room to breastfeed or express  
            milk. 


          2)Background.  Existing state labor code requires every  
            employer, including the state and any political subdivision,  
            to provide a reasonable amount of break time to accommodate an  








                                                                     AB 302


                                                                    Page  4





            employee desiring to express breast milk for the employee's  
            infant child. Labor code further requires an employer to make  
            reasonable efforts to provide the employee with the use of a  
            room or other location, other than a toilet stall, in close  
            proximity to the employee's work area, for the employee to  
            express milk in private. The room or location may include the  
            place where the employee normally works if it otherwise meets  
            the requirements of this section.  Current law does not  
            require access to a place to store milk. 


          3)Opposition. The Association of California School  
            Administrators (ACSA) is opposed to the bill unless amended to  
            remove the provisions which specify the kind of space provided  
            to students for expressing milk.  ACSA notes that while there  
            is a need to provide accommodations for lactating students,  
            the approach in this bill is too restrictive, and that  
            decisions on how best to implement "reasonable accommodations"  
            should be left to local discretion.  





          Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081