BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    





                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                         Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
                             2015-2016  Regular  Session


          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          Version: March 31, 2016
          Hearing Date:  June 14, 2016
          Fiscal: No
          Urgency: No
          RD   


                                        SUBJECT
                                           
                              Employment discrimination

                                      DESCRIPTION  

          This bill would eliminate the current exemption for any  
          individual employed under a special license in a nonprofit  
          sheltered workshop or rehabilitation facility from the Fair  
          Employment and Housing Act's (FEHA) definition of "employee,"  
          thus protecting those individuals from any form of employment  
          discrimination on the basis of race, religious creed, physical  
          disability, mental disability, sex, age, and sexual orientation,  
          among other things.  This bill would also provide, however, that  
          nothing under FEHA relating to discrimination on account of  
          disability shall subject an employer to legal liability for  
          obtaining a specified license or paying an individual with a  
          physical or mental disability less than minimum wage pursuant to  
          a specified license from the Industrial Welfare Commission under  
          existing law.  

                                      BACKGROUND  

          California law reflects a strong public policy protecting  
          individuals against discrimination under numerous statutes,  
          covering a variety of contexts.  The Fair Employment and Housing  
          Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, for example, prohibit  
          discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, and  
          services provided by business establishments on the basis of  
          specified personal characteristics, such as sex, race, color,  
          religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical  
          condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual  









          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          PageB of? 
          orientation.   (See Gov. Code Sec. 12920 et seq. for FEHA; Civ.  
          Code Sec. 51 for Unruh Civil Rights Act).  Others still,  
          prohibit discrimination in public schools and in other  
          state-funded programs or activities.  (See Educational Equity at  
          Ed. Code Sec. 200 et seq. and Equity in Higher Education Act at  
          Ed. Code Sec. 66270 et seq.; see also Gov. Code Section 11135 et  
          seq.)

          Of particular import to this bill, FEHA not only protects an  
          employee from discrimination on protected bases, but it also  
          entitles the employee to certain accommodations under the law  
          based on, for example, their religious creed or physical or  
          mental disability.  Further, FEHA generally protects an employee  
          against retaliation by the employer if the employee has opposed  
          any of the employer's discriminatory practices or because the  
          employee has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in a FEHA  
          proceeding against the employer.  That being said, under current  
          law, FEHA exempts from its definition of "employee" any person  
          who is employed under a special license in a nonprofit sheltered  
          workshop or rehabilitation facility.  Thus, such individuals  
          employed by a nonprofit sheltered workshop or rehabilitation  
          facility, could presumably be discriminated against on the basis  
          of their sex, religion, race, marital status, national origin,  
          and more, without any protections under the law and without any  
          consequence to the employer who would otherwise be held in  
          violation of FEHA with respect to any other employees.  

          Accordingly, this bill would eliminate the current exemption  
          from the definition of employee for any "individual employed  
          under a special license in a nonprofit sheltered workshop or  
          rehabilitation facility."  Instead, this bill would expressly  
          define "employee" to include an individual paid under a special  
          license in a sheltered workshop (regardless of whether it is a  
          nonprofit or for-profit workshop), rehabilitation facility, or  
          day program, thus affording such individuals protections and  
          rights under FEHA.  At the same time, this bill would ensure  
          that an employer who obtains a specified license or pays an  
          individual less than minimum wage pursuant to a specified  
          license from the California Industrial Welfare Commission is not  
          legally liable for doing so under the anti-disability  
          discrimination provisions of FEHA.

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
           Existing federal law  , Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,  








          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          PageC of? 
          prohibits discrimination and harassment of employees.  (42  
          U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq.)
           
          Existing federal law  , Section 14(c) of the federal Fair Labor  
          Standards Act (FLSA), provides for the employment of certain  
          individuals at wage rates below the minimum wage.  Under this  
          provision, individuals whose earnings or productive capacity is  
          impaired by physical or mental disability for the work to be  
          performed, including those related to age or injury, may be paid  
          less than the federal minimum wage.  Certificates issued by the  
          Department of Labor to the employer are required for the  
          employer to pay the special minimum wage.  (29 U.S.C. Sec.  
          214(c).) 
           
          Existing law  authorizes mentally or physically handicapped  
          employees (and nonprofit sheltered workshops and rehabilitation  
          facilities employing them) to be issued a license by the  
          Industrial Welfare Commission authorizing a special subminimum  
          wage.  (Lab. Code Secs. 1191, 1191.5.)
           
          Existing law  , the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA),  
          prohibits, as a matter of public policy, discrimination and  
          harassment in employment 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.  (Gov. Code  
          Sec. 12920, 12940 et seq.)
          
           Existing law  , FEHA, provides that it is an unlawful employment  
          practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational  
          qualification, or, except where based upon applicable security  
          regulations, as specified, for an employer to refuse to hire or  
          employ a person or to refuse to select a person for a training  
          program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge a  
          person from employment or from a training program leading to  
          employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation  
          or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of  
          any of the above-listed protected bases.  (Gov. Code Sec.  
          12940(a).)  

           Existing law  , FEHA, further provides, however, that such  
          disability discrimination protections do not prohibit an  
          employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee with a  
          physical or mental disability, or subject an employer to any  








          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          PageD of? 
          legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the  
          discharge of an employee with a physical or mental disability,  
          where the employee, because of his or her physical or mental  
          disability, is unable to perform his or her essential duties  
          even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those  
          duties in a manner that would not endanger his or her health or  
          safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable  
          accommodations.  (Gov. Code Sec. 12940(a)(1).)

           Existing law  , FEHA, prohibits an employer or other entity to  
          fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or  
          mental disability of an applicant or employee; however, an  
          employer is not required to provide accommodation that is  
          demonstrated by the employer or other covered entity to produce  
          undue hardship, as defined.   (Gov. Code Sec. 12940(m).)  
          
           Existing law  , FEHA, provides that the term "employee" does not  
          include any individual employed by his or her parents, spouse,  
          or child, or any individual employed under a special license in  
          a nonprofit sheltered workshop or rehabilitation facility.   
          (Gov. Code Sec. 12926(c).) 

           This bill  would, instead, provide that the term "employee" under  
          FEHA includes an individual paid under a special license in a  
          sheltered workshop, rehabilitation facility, or day program, but  
          does not include any individual employed by his or her parents,  
          spouse, or child.  

           This bill  would provide that nothing under FEHA relating to  
          discrimination on account of disability shall subject an  
          employer to legal liability for obtaining a specified license or  
          paying an individual with a physical or mental disability less  
          than minimum wage pursuant to specified laws, above. 
                                        COMMENT
           
          1.    Stated need for the bill  

          According to the author:

            The Legislature has made great strides in expanding the  
            protections and opportunities for most Californians under the  
            Fair Employment and Housing Act. From extending the bases of  
            potential discrimination to include age, gender, and religious  
            dress, to extending the definition of employee to include  
            unpaid interns and volunteers, previous efforts have sought to  








          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          PageE of? 
            ensure that all California workers are fully protected in the  
            workplace.

            However, we have failed individuals with disabilities working  
            in sheltered workshops and rehabilitation centers by not  
            addressing the exemption of these employers from these laws.  
            This has left individuals with disabilities working in these  
            settings without the same recourse as others, should a case of  
            discrimination or harassment arise in their workplace. While  
            we recognize the need for certain nuances regarding the  
            compensation paid to these individuals and hiring practices of  
            the sheltered workshops and rehabilitation centers, it is  
            simply unacceptable to leave this population of workers  
            without these basic workplace protections. It is time to get  
            rid of this exemption and protect all California workers as  
            equally as possible.  

          Disability Rights California, co-sponsor of this bill, writes  
          "[c]urrently, under state law, 'employee' does not include any  
          individual employed by a sheltered workshop or rehabilitation  
          facility.  This leaves people with disabilities employed in  
          these settings no recourse for discrimination by their employer.  
           [ . . .  This ] bill would change the Government Code so that  
          individuals with disabilities who are in sheltered work are  
          considered 'employees' and are provided the same protections as  
          other employees under California's Federal Employment and  
          Housing Act (FEHA).  Reform is needed to strengthen rights and  
          protections for sheltered workshop employees who work in  
          highly-restrictive environments and currently are not afforded  
          the same protections against discrimination as other employees."  
           

          2.    Sheltered workshops  

          The term "sheltered workshop," which is central to this bill,  
          refers to a supervised workplace for physically or mentally  
          disabled or handicapped adults.  These are organizations or  
          environments that employ people with disabilities at subminimum  
          wages.  State law specifically recognizes the use of sheltered  
          workshops and programs that pay less than minimum wage, as long  
          as the employee or the workshop is licensed by the State.   
          According to the Department of Industrial Relations, sheltered  
          workshop licenses can be issued for programs operated by  
          nonprofit organizations.  (See Lab. Code Sec. 1191.5)   A  
          license authorizing payment of a special minimum wage to a  








          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          PageF of? 
          disabled worker can also be issued to for-profit business  
          establishments and disabled individuals.  Any special minimum  
          wage paid to disabled workers must be commensurate with their  
          productivity and wage compared with those of experienced workers  
          who are not disabled but perform essentially the same type,  
          quality, and quantity of work in the same vicinity as the  
          disabled worker.  The license has a specific duration and  
          minimum wage that must be paid to those employed in each  
          program. (See Lab. Code Sec. 1191.)  Likewise, federal law,  
          Section 14c of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), provides for  
          the employment of certain disabled individuals at wage rates  
          below the minimum wage as well.  These programs and the  
          authorization of subminimum wage within such certificated  
          programs are not without controversy, even within the disability  
          community.  "Some believe this program may keep disabled  
          employees in isolated workshop environments and often allows  
          them to be paid less than the federal minimum wage. Others  
          believe that some form of financial support is essential to  
          creating and maintaining jobs for people with disabilities."

          Indeed, in recent years, there has been a push to move away from  
          isolated programs employing primarily disabled individuals, and  
          towards "integrated employment," where disabled individuals work  
          in integrated settings and can earn a livable wage.<1>  In 2014,  
          President Obama signed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity  
          Act (WIOA), placing a number of limitations on placements at  
          sheltered workshops.  Under WIOA, youth with disabilities (under  
          the age of 24) will no longer be allowed to work for less than  
          the federal minimum wage unless they are provided pre-employment  
          transition services and attempt vocational rehabilitation  
          services first.  WIOA also requires state vocational  
          rehabilitation agencies to allocate at least 15 percent of their  
          federal funds towards such transition services.  (U.S.  
          Department of Labor, WIOA Overview  
           [as of May 29,  
          2016].)  
          ---------------------------
          <1> "Integrated work" under state law, the Lanterman  
          Developmental Disabilities Services Act, is defined as the  
          engagement of an employee with a disability in work in a setting  
          typically found in the community wherein the employee interacts  
          with individuals without disabilities other than those who are  
          providing services to those individuals, to the same extent that  
          individuals without disabilities in comparable positions  
          interact with other persons. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 4851(o).)









          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          PageG of? 

          In 2013, joining over a dozen other states, California passed  
          legislation declaring a state "Employment First" policy that  
          opportunities for integrated, competitive employment be given  
          the highest priority for working age individuals with  
          developmental disabilities, regardless of the severity of their  
          disabilities.  That legislation, AB 1041 (Chesbro, Ch. 677,  
          Stats. 2013), in part required regional centers to provide  
          consumers aged 16 and older with information about the  
          Employment First Policy, options for integrated competitive  
          employment, and services and supports, including postsecondary  
          education, that are available to enable the consumer to  
          transition from school to work, and to obtain and keep an  
          integrated competitive job.  Since then, the California  
          Department of Rehabilitation (DOR), the Department of  
          Developmental Services (DDS), and Department of Education (CDE)  
          have entered into an agreement consistent with this "Employment  
          First" policy and other laws to make employment in an integrated  
          setting, at a competitive wage, for individuals with  
          intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities (ID/DD)  
          its highest priority. These departments, in conjunction with  
          Disability Rights California, are to meet with stakeholders to  
          identify and recommend changes in policies, practices, statutes,  
          or regulations in order to improve integrated, competitive  
          employment outcomes for these individuals.  (See California  
          Health and Human Services Agency, California Competitive  
          Integrated Employment (CIE) Blueprint for Change  
           [as of May 29, 2016].)  
            
          Of particular concern to the proponents of this bill, is that  
          persons with disabilities working in such sheltered workshops do  
          not have the protections of the state's anti-employment  
          discrimination statutes.

          3.    Bill would protect individuals in sheltered workforces or  
            rehabilitation programs from discrimination on any of the  
            protected categories under FEHA
           
          The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits  
          discrimination against an employee or employment applicant on  
          the basis of, among other things, sex, national origin,  
          ancestry, religious creed, and physical or mental disability.   
          (Gov. Code Sec. 12940(a).)  FEHA protections also extend to the  
          right of accommodation and protection against retaliation.   








          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          PageH of? 
          Specifically, FEHA requires an employer to provide reasonable  
          religious and disability accommodations to an employee and  
          provides retaliation protection for an employee who opposes any  
          discriminatory practices of the employer or who files a  
          complaint, testifies, or assists in a FEHA action.  (Gov. Code  
          Sec. 12940(l), (m); Gov. Code Sec. 12940(h).)  

          Currently, however, because FEHA's definition of the term  
          "employee" specifically excludes any individual employed under a  
          special license in a nonprofit sheltered workshop or  
          rehabilitation facility, such protections do not extend to a  
          person who works in a sheltered workshop or rehabilitation  
          facility.   (Gov. Code Sec. 12926(c).) Thus, currently, if an  
          individual employed by a sheltered workshop is discriminated  
          against on the basis of their sexual orientation or refused  
          accommodations for their religious practices, they would have no  
          protections or rights under FEHA.  While such language was first  
          added in 1973 (AB 1126 (Dunlap, Ch. 1189, Stats. 1973)),  
          presumably to encourage the use of sheltered workshops and  
          rehabilitation facilities, such an exemption is arguably  
          outdated and inconsistent with this state's strong public  
          policies against discrimination in all contexts, from employment  
          to education, and business to state-funded programs.  (See  
          Background.)   Such an exemption is arguably also unnecessary,  
          given that state law can ensure that participation by licensed  
          employers in sheltered workshops does not constitute a violation  
          of FEHA on the basis of disability, while still affording  
          disabled individuals working in these workshops protection from  
          other forms of discrimination, such as sex, sexual orientation,  
          or religious discrimination, among others.  Indeed, as amended  
          March 31, 2016, this bill would expressly protect employers who  
          are authorized under existing law to pay subminimum wage for  
          these purposes from being legally liable for discrimination on  
          the basis of disability under FEHA.  (See Comment 4.)  
           
          In support of the bill, the California Labor Federation writes  
          that "[t]he 'sheltered workshops' concepts dates back to the  
          1930s, when misinformed attitudes regarding disabled workers led  
          to questionable and exploitative policies such as minimum wage  
          exemptions that somehow survive to this day.  In some cases,  
          these workers earn less than a dollar an hour, and the process  
          by which workers are declared 'less productive' is entirely  
          unregulated and ripe for abuse.  This FEHA exemption further  
          harms such workers by stripping them of basic protections  
          against discrimination and retaliation, robbing these  








          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          PageI of? 
          individuals of dignity and safety on the job while their  
          employers escape consequences for even blatant harassment.  At  
          minimum, disabled workers deserve at least the same FEHA  
          protections as other workers.  AB 488 [ . . . ] deletes the  
          unconscionable FEHA exemption that leaves our most vulnerable  
          workers exposed to blatant mistreatment.  With this change,  
          disabled Californians will finally win the basic right to a  
          discrimination and harassment-free workplace."

          Staff notes that currently, the definition of employee under  
          FEHA is defined broadly by simply listing what the definition  
          does not include.  Specifically, FEHA defines "employee" to not  
          include any individual employed by his or her parents, spouse,  
          or child, or any individual employed under a special license in  
          a nonprofit sheltered workshop or rehabilitation facility.   
          (Gov. Code Sec. 12926(c).)  This bill would now define  
          "employee" to affirmatively include an individual paid under a  
          special license in a sheltered workshop, rehabilitation  
          facility, or day program, but to exclude any individual employed  
          by his or her parents, spouse, or child.  If the desire is to  
          remove the existing exemption of individuals "employed under a  
          special license in a nonprofit sheltered workshop or  
          rehabilitation facility," such language should simply be removed  
          from the definition entirely.  Otherwise, this bill, as  
          currently drafted, might be misinterpreted to mean that employee  
          includes only individuals "paid under a special license in a  
          sheltered workshop, rehabilitation facility, or day program."

          The following amendment would remove any reference to sheltered  
          workshop, rehabilitation, or day program employees entirely from  
          the definition of "employee" for FEHA, thus ensuring that they  
          would be treated like any other employee, which hereinafter  
          would simply be defined to exclude individuals employed by his  
          or her parents, spouse, or child. 

             Suggested amendment:
             
            On page 2, lines 15-17, strike "includes an individual paid  
            under a special license in a sheltered workshop,  
            rehabilitation facility, or day program but"

          4.    Exemption for employers paying subminimum wage pursuant to  
          specified law  

          Separate from FEHA, which protects individuals, including  








          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          PageJ of? 
          individuals with disabilities, from discrimination on the basis  
          of protected characteristics in employment, California law,  
          Sections 1191 and 1191.5 of the Labor Code provide authorization  
          for employers to pay subminimum wage to persons with  
          disabilities upon obtaining a specified license from the  
          Industrial Welfare Commission, which generally holds a duty to  
          ascertain the wages paid to all employees in this state, to  
          ascertain the hours and conditions of labor and employment in  
          the various occupations, trades, and industries in which  
          employees are employed in this state, and to investigate the  
          health, safety, and welfare of those employees.   

          Specifically, Section 1191 provides that for "any occupation in  
          which a minimum wage has been established, the commission may  
          issue to an employee who is mentally or physically handicapped,  
          or both, a special license authorizing the employment of the  
                                                                               licensee for a period not to exceed one year from date of issue,  
          at a wage less than the legal minimum wage. The commission shall  
          fix a special minimum wage for the licensee. Such license may be  
          renewed on a yearly basis."  Similarly, Section 1191.5 provides  
          that, notwithstanding the aforementioned provision, for  
          nonprofit sheltered workshops, "the commission may issue a  
          special license to a nonprofit organization such as a sheltered  
          workshop or rehabilitation facility to permit the employment of  
          employees who have been determined by the commission to meet the  
          requirements in Section 1191 without requiring individual  
          licenses of such employees." Again, this section also requires  
          the commission to fix a special minimum wage for such employees  
          and the special license for the nonprofit corporation must be  
          renewed on a yearly basis, or more frequently as determined by  
          the commission.  

          Under FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice, unless based  
          upon a bona fide occupational qualification, or, except where  
          based upon applicable security regulation, as specified, for an  
          employer, because of the 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 of any person, to  
          refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the  
          person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar  
          or to discharge the person from employment or from a training  
          program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the  
          person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of  








          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          PageK of? 
          employment.  (Gov. Code Sec. 12940(a).) By eliminating the  
          exemption of individuals employed under a special license in a  
          nonprofit sheltered workshop or rehabilitation facility from the  
          definition of "employees" for purposes of FEHA, this bill could  
          have inadvertently subjected employers who hold a valid license  
          under Labor Code Sections 1191 or 1191.5 to liability for paying  
          specified individuals with disabilities subminimum wage.   
          Accordingly, the author amended the bill to also expressly  
          specify that nothing in FEHA relating to discrimination on  
          account of disability shall subject an employer to legal  
          liability for obtaining a license pursuant to Section 1191.5 of  
          the Labor Code or paying an individual with a physical or mental  
          disability less than minimum wage pursuant to either Section  
          1191 or Section 1191.5 of the Labor Code.

          5.    Oppose unless amended  

          The California Disability Services Association (CDSA) writes an  
          oppose unless amended letter with respect to several issues,  
          stating that "[b]ecause of some of the most basic requirements  
          of FEHA, the process for placement and oversight of individuals  
          in sheltered workshops, rehab facilities and day programs would  
          be severely compromised" under the current version of the bill.   
          While CDSA supports "making the law clear that ALL employees are  
          entitled to FEHA protection from discrimination and harassment"  
          they believe the bill would impose liability for  
          non-discriminatory behavior that is essential to the employment  
          arrangements for individuals covered by the bill.  CDSA  
          highlights specific areas of concern that demonstrate several  
          "fundamental problems with the current version of the bill" as  
          follows: 

           FEHA prohibits employers from making any inquiry, either  
            pre-employment or subsequent to hiring, as to whether an  
            applicant or employee has a disability, or the nature or  
            severity of that disability.  It's impossible for a workshop,  
            facility, or program to function if it cannot even inquire as  
            to the disability of an employee, or to utilize that  
            information during the course of employment to make necessary  
            adjustments to the employment arrangements. 

           FEHA requires employers to engage in a timely, good faith,  
            interactive process with an employee or applicant to determine  
            reasonable accommodations.  This bill fails to allow any  
            inquiry into an employee's disability, does not clarify which  








          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          PageL of? 
            party is the "employer," and does not contemplate the process  
            by which an individual who cannot express their needs can be  
            accommodated.  One of the most important aspects of these  
            placements is the role of the service provider responsible for  
            the individual serves in working with outside entities to  
            create employment opportunities for the individuals being  
            placed.  [On] its face, FEHA's "interactive" requirements seem  
            to prevent the service provider from serving that role. 

           Since "day programs are not addressed in existing labor laws,  
            their express addition to FEHA can be read to create an  
            employer-employee relationship where one does not currently  
            exist.  [ . . . ] In addition, since FEHA makes individuals  
            with various levels of disability personally liable for acts  
            of harassment, converting the day program setting into an  
            employment setting will inevitably promote litigation between  
            day program participants.  These program participants do have  
            causes of action now for these types of incidents, but most  
            are resolved by the day program providers by working with the  
            individuals and families. [ . . . ]

          CDSA urges the author to consider amending the bill "to clarify  
          that individuals in these settings are protected from  
          discrimination and harassment, while allowing for a  
          comprehensive review of the potential unintended consequences"  
          (by stakeholders convened by the Director of the Department of  
          Fair Employment and Housing).   

          Staff notes that the suggested amendment in Comment 3, above,  
          should help address concerns specific to day programs.   
          Additionally, in response to CDSA's question as to who is the  
          employer, co-sponsor Disability Rights California (DRC) writes  
          that "in the sheltered workshop [ . . . ] setting, the provider  
          is the employer," stressing that there is no private business  
          employing the client in a sheltered workshop.  Moreover, as to  
          the concern that these workshops and facilities would not be  
          able to function and meet the needs of their employees  
          (including for purposes of reasonable accommodations) if they  
          cannot inquire as to the person's disabilities, DRC responds  
          that "State law allows for differences in treatment of people  
          with disabilities under the requirement that employers provide  
          reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities. Based on  
          the law, the analysis of how to do so is individualized based on  
          the employee's and the employer's needs."  DRC also argues that  
          "[t]he provider can ask questions under FEHA pre-employment,  








          AB 488 (Gonzalez)
          PageM of? 
          after making a job offer, that are job related and consistent  
          with business necessity.  AB 488 could also be clarified to  
          indicate that sheltered workshops [ . . . ] could ask  
          disability-related questions necessary to employ clients."  


           Support  :  Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California  
          Collaboration; California Labor Federation; SEIU California;  
          Special Needs Network 

           Opposition  :  California Disability Services Association  

                                        HISTORY
           
           Source  :  Disability Rights California; State Council on  
          Developmental Disabilities

           Related Pending Legislation :  None Known 

           Prior Legislation  :  None Known 

           Prior Vote  :

          Assembly Floor (Ayes 69, Noes 0)
          Assembly Labor and Employment Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 0)

                                   **************