BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 676
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
676 (Calderon) - As Introduced February 25, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Labor and Employment |Vote:|5 - 1 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY: This bill prohibits, starting July 1, 2016, an
employer, an employment agency, or a person who operates an
Internet Web site for posting jobs from publishing an
advertisement or announcement for a job that indicates current
employment is a requirement, unless this is based on a bona fide
occupational qualification. Specifically, this bill:
AB 676
Page 2
1)Prohibits an employer or an employment agency from
affirmatively asking an applicant to disclose information
concerning the applicant's current employment status until the
employer has determined that the applicant meets the minimum
employment qualifications for the position.
2)Prohibits an employment agency, unless based on a bona fide
occupational qualification, from limiting, segregating, or
classifying an individual in any manner that may limit that
individual's access to information about jobs or referrals for
consideration of jobs because of the individual's employment
status.
3)Prohibits an employer, employment agency, or person operating
a job posting website from interfering with, restraining, or
denying the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any
rights provided under this bill, or discriminating against an
individual because the individual has engaged in specified
activities.
4)Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this bill
to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner.
5)Establishes civil penalties of $1,000 for a first violation,
$5,000 for a second violation, and $10,000 for each subsequent
violation.
6)Specifies this bill does not create or authorize a private
right of action.
7)Defines "employment status" to mean an individual's present
unemployment, regardless of length of time that the individual
has been unemployed.
FISCAL EFFECT: Administrative costs to the Department of Labor
AB 676
Page 3
Standards Enforcement, potentially in the range of $1 million to
$3 million (special funds), to process, review, and investigate
complaints.
Predicting the number and nature of the claims that may come
before the DLSE is difficult. According to data from the
Employment Development Department, as of February, there are
approximately 1.2 million unemployed workers in California.
According to DLSE, cases involving retaliation often involve
lengthy, resource intensive investigations. This bill also
expands DLSE enforcement authority to include 3rd party internet
website providers. This is a new addition to the DLSE statutory
framework and associated costs are difficult to determine.
Further, this bill prohibits a private right of action, meaning
all complaints would come before DLSE.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. Over the last several years, significant media
attention has focused on reports that some employers are
refusing to consider applicants for employment unless those
individuals are currently employed in other jobs. Further,
research conducted by the National Employment Law Project
(NELP) in 2011 identified more than 150 ads that included
exclusions based on current employment status. This bill seeks
to address discrimination against the unemployed by
prohibiting current employment as a requirement, unless based
on a bona fide occupational qualification.
2)Prior legislation. This bill is
nearly identical to AB 2271 (Calderon) of 2014, vetoed by
Governor Brown. The veto message reads as follows:
"This bill would prohibit an employer from discriminating
against job applicants based on the applicant's status as
AB 676
Page 4
unemployed. While I support the intent of this bill, it
could impede the state's efforts to connect unemployed
workers to prospective employers as currently drafted. The
problems facing our state's long term unemployed are great.
There is no doubt that those Californians want to get back
to work and I want to help them get there - unfortunately
this bill does not provide the proper path to address this
problem."
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081