BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 302
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
302 (Cristina Garcia)
As Amended July 14, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |60-17 |(June 3, 2015) |SENATE: |28-9 |(September 1, |
| | | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY: Requires that schools provide reasonable
accommodations to breastfeeding students on school campuses.
The Senate amendments change from 30 to 60 the number of days by
which the California Department of Education (CDE) would be
required to issue a written decision on the appeal of a local
complaint decision under the Uniform Complain Procedures (UCP).
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires (Labor Code Section 1030 et seq.) employers to
provide break time and a location which is not a bathroom
stall in which employees can express milk.
AB 302
Page 2
2)Federal law, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (42 United States Code Section 18001 et seq., 2010)
requires that employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards
Act be given break time and a place which is not a bathroom to
express breastmilk.
3)Prohibits (Government Code Section 12926) discriminatory
practices in employment or housing accommodations on the basis
of sex. For purposes of the act, the term sex also includes
breastfeeding or medical conditions related to breastfeeding.
4)Requires, in federal (34 Code of Federal Regulations Section
106.40(b)(1)) and state law (Education Code Section 200) that
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee:
1)New lactation mandate: Unknown, potentially significant
reimbursable state mandate costs for schools to provide
required accommodations for breastfeeding needs. The bill
allows for broad interpretation of accommodation requirements
which could result in a broad range of activities determined
to be reimbursable under state mandate law. (Proposition 98,
1988)
2)The California Department of Education (CDE) anticipates the
need for one full-time position and one part-time position and
about $147,000 to address a potential increase in appeals due
to adding a new category of potential complaints. Costs will
depend on actual complaints received and appeals filed.
(General Fund)
AB 302
Page 3
3)Expansion of existing UCP mandate: Unknown, potentially
significant reimbursable state mandate costs related to
developing procedures and local investigation of complaints.
To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines this
bill to impose a new or expansion of an existing state
mandate, this could create pressure to increase the K-12
Mandate Block Grant to reflect their inclusion. (Proposition
98)
COMMENTS:
Need for this bill. The author's office states, "Lactation is
indisputably related to pregnancy and childbirth, and students
who are nursing may need to express milk or breastfeed as
frequently as every two to three hours. The California School
Boards Association has a model policy for parenting students
that includes optional lactation language, but few schools adopt
it. Current law specifies how lactation accommodations are to
be provided to school staff, but there is nothing in the
Education Code that specifies how schools should meet parenting
students' rights to lactation accommodations.
"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."
State and federal law extend rights to employees but not to
students. Both state and federal law require most employers to
provide reasonable accommodations to lactating employees,
including break time and the provision of private space in which
to express milk. Though Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972 requirements, given recent changes in state housing and
employment non-discrimination law which define "related
conditions" of pregnancy to include lactation, might be
understood to include lactation accommodations for students,
AB 302
Page 4
these rights are not explicitly extended to students in state
law.
Schools already required to provide space for employees. The
requirements of this bill largely mirror those required under
state and federal law for employees. As a result, schools may
not have to designate a space for students beyond what they have
already established for employees. Recent amendments make clear
that an existing facility set aside for other mothers on a
school site may be used to meet the requirements of this bill.
Lack of accommodations may affect educational choices. In a
2015 report titled, "Breaking Down Barriers for California's
Pregnant and Parenting Students," the American Civil Liberties
Union found:
Failure to provide adequate lactation
accommodations at one school site may result in a
student's decision to forego breastfeeding
altogether or enroll in a school site exclusively
based on the ability to pump or breastfeed during
school hours. During focus group discussions,
some pregnant and parenting students shared that
school administrators discouraged them from
expressing breast milk at school. Two out of the
nine pregnant and parenting students interviewed
said that their decision to leave regular school
was based entirely on their inability to
breastfeed or pump milk.
Analysis Prepared by:
Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN:
0001935
AB 302
Page 5