BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 883
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB
883 (Low)
As Enrolled September 14, 2015
2/3 vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | | (June 3, |SENATE: | 29-9 | (September 9, |
| |52-27 |2015) | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(September 10, | | | |
| |65-13 |2015) | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. & E.
SUMMARY: Enacts various provisions related to discrimination
based on current or former public employee status.
The Senate amendments:
AB 883
Page 2
1)Revise this bill to provide that a state or local agency shall
not do any of the following:
a) Publish an advertisement or announcement for any job
that includes a provision stating or indicating that an
individual's status as a current or former public employee
disqualifies an individual from eligibility for employment.
b) Ask an applicant to specifically disclose the
applicant's status as a current or former public employee
until the employer has determined that the applicant meets
the minimum employment qualifications for the position, as
stated in the published notice for the job.
2)Provide that this bill applies only to a state or local agency
(and not private employers).
3)Define "state agency" to mean any state office, officer,
department, division, bureau, board, commission, or agency.
4)Define "local agency" to mean any county, city, city and
county, including a charter city or county, or any special
district.
5)Define "current or former public employee" to include any
person who is currently, or was previously, employed by a
public entity, as well as any person who is a participant in a
government retirement system.
6)Provide that this bill shall become operative on July 1, 2016.
AB 883
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill would result in unknown costs, potentially
in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, (special funds) for the
Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to process, review, and
investigate complaints.
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 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
AB 883
Page 4
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 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.
With the recent amendment to apply this bill only to a state or
local agency, several opponents, including the California
Chamber of Commerce, have removed their opposition to the bill.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
This bill seeks to vest in the Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement an entirely new responsibility: to enforce a
prohibition on job advertisements and communications that relate
to a person's prior status as a public employee.
AB 883
Page 5
I think I understand what the sponsors intend, but the
provisions in this bill could limit legitimate efforts of public
jurisdictions to manage their workforce.
For this reason, I am unable to sign the bill.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN:
0002494