BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 883
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
883 (Low) - As Amended April 6, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Labor and Employment |Vote:|5 - 1 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
AB 883
Page 2
This bill prohibits employers, or a person who operates
specified job posting Internet Web site, from publishing or
posting a job advertisement that would disqualify an applicant
who is currently, or was at one point, a public employee,
authorizes a job applicant or prospective applicant to bring an
action against the perspective employer, and provides for a fine
for an intentional violation.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown costs, potentially in excess of $1
million (special funds) for the Department of Industrial
Relations to process, review, and investigate complaints.
Predicting the number and nature of the claims that may come
before the DLSE is difficult. 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.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. The California Professional Firefighters are
sponsoring this bill in response to employment practices that
require an applicant for employment to not be a participant of
a governmental retirement plan. According to the sponsor,
qualified job applicants are being discriminated against and
penalized when their work history shows that they currently
hold, or previously held, a position in which they were
classified as a public employee since only public employees
are eligible to be members of a governmental retirement plan.
2)Background. Existing federal and state law contain provisions
that define unlawful discrimination and unlawful employment
AB 883
Page 3
practices by employers and employment agencies. These
provisions exist to protect both prospective and current
employees against employment discrimination.
The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), prohibits
harassment and discrimination in employment because of, among
other things, race, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual
orientation, marital status, mental and physical disability,
age and/or retaliation for protesting illegal discrimination
related to one of these categories. In addition, current law
generally prohibits public and private employers from
requiring an applicant to disclose an arrest or detention that
did not result in a conviction.
The Retaliation Complaint Investigation (RCI) unit within
DIR's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE)
investigates complaints of violations of approximately 20
statutory rights, such as using sick leave to attend to
illness of a family member, reporting violations of state or
federal law, and freedom from gender-based wage
discrimination. Based on data for 2009 to 2012, approximately
1,200 cases were filed annually.
3)Opposition. A coalition of employer groups, including the
California Chamber of Commerce, opposes this bill. According
to their letter:
"If the employer inquires into the applicant's relevant
background either through a written job application that asks
the applicant to list his or her prior employers, or through
an in-person interview to discuss the applicant's work
AB 883
Page 4
experience, and discovers the applicant's protected status as
a former or current public employee, then the employer will be
subject to potential civil litigation under [this bill] if the
employer does not ultimately hire the individual. Even if the
decision to hire is based upon a separate, unrelated reason
other than the individual's status as a former or public
employee, once the "protected" information is discovered, it
creates the opportunity for a discrimination lawsuit against
the business. Unlike other protected classifications currently
in California law, an applicant's prior employment history is
not something that an employer can easily navigate away from
while inquiring about an applicant's work experience when
interviewing or reviewing a candidate for employment in order
to avoid a discrimination claim."
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081