BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 883
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
883 (Low)
As Amended June 1, 2015
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+--------------------|
|Labor |5-1 |Roger Hernández, |Harper |
| | |Chu, Low, McCarty, | |
| | |Thurmond | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |12-5 |Gomez, Bonta, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Calderon, Daly, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Eggman, |Wagner |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gordon, Holden, | |
| | |Quirk, Rendon, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Enacts various provisions related to discrimination
based on current or former public employee status. Specifically,
AB 883
Page 2
this bill:
1)Prohibits an employer, including a public employer, from doing
the following:
a) Publishing an advertisement or announcement for any job
that includes a provision stating or indicating directly or
indirectly that the applicant for employment must not be a
current or former public employee.
b) Communicating or disclosing that an applicant's status as
a current or former public employee disqualifies an
individual from eligibility for employment.
c) Making an employment decision based on an applicant's
current or former status as a public employee.
2)Prohibits a person who operates specified job posting Internet
Web sites from including in advertisements or announcements a
provision stating or indicating directly or indirectly that the
applicant for employment must not be a current or former
employee.
3)Provides that this bill shall not be construed to prohibit an
employer or a person who operates an Internet Web site for
posting jobs from:
a) Publishing in print, on an Internet Web site, or in any
other medium, an advertisement or announcement for any job
that contains any provision setting forth qualifications for
a job, including:
i) Holding a current and valid professional or
AB 883
Page 3
occupational license, certificate, registration, permit, or
other credential.
ii) Requiring a minimum level of education or training or
professional, occupational, or field experience.
iii) Stating that only individuals who are current
employees of the employer will be considered for that job.
b) Setting forth qualifications for any job, including:
i) Holding a current and valid professional or
occupational license, certificate, registration, permit, or
other credential.
ii) Requiring a minimum level of education or training or
professional, occupational, or field experience.
iii) Stating that only individuals who are current
employees of the employer will be considered for that job.
c) Obtaining information regarding an individual's current or
former status as a public employee, including recent relevant
experience.
d) Having knowledge of a person's current or former status as
a public employee.
e) Otherwise making employment decisions pertaining to that
individual.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Unknown costs, potentially in excess of $1 million (special
funds) for the Department of Industrial Relations to process,
AB 883
Page 4
review, and investigate complaints.
2)Predicting the number and nature of the claims that may come
before the Department of Industrial Relations Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement (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: This bill is sponsored by the California Professional
Firefighters (CPF), who argue that a new trend in employment
practices has surfaced - one that requires an applicant for
employment to not be a participant of a governmental retirement
plan. Consequently, qualified job applicants are now 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.
The sponsor argues that punishing a potential applicant due to his
or her previous experience as a public employee is not only
divisive; it is a true disservice to the employer that has posted
the job advertisement. By discriminating against potential
applicants in this way, an employer may be excluding an entire
group of the most qualified applicants that could be considered
for the position.
For example, firefighters are highly-skilled and highly-trained
first responders. CPF states that its members are also public
employees. Many of the skills that firefighters acquire in their
profession come from firsthand experience on the front lines -
responding to fires and mitigating other emergencies. The amount
AB 883
Page 5
of time a firefighter spends on his or her education, training,
and previous experience should not be barrier to continued
employment. With respect to a fire department, the first priority
is to engage a firefighting force that is best capable of keeping
a community safe and therefore, fire department applicants should
be viewed as first rate candidates.
The sponsor argues that this bill levels the playing field for job
applicants by allowing their credentials and qualifications for
the position - earned in service to the citizens of California -
speak instead of their status as a current or former public
employee.
A coalition of employer groups, including the California Chamber
of Commerce, opposes this bill. They argue that 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, including age, marital status, or disability, 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.
In addition, they argue that there is no evidence of any
systematic discrimination in the private sector against
individuals who are either current or former public employees that
this bill seeks to address. The private sector should not be
subject to the provisions of this bill.
AB 883
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by:
Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0000576