BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 987
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
987 (Levine)
As Introduced February 26, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
|----------------+------+------------------------+------------------|
|Labor |6-0 |Roger Hernández, Chu, | |
| | |Low, McCarty, | |
| | |Patterson, Thurmond | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+------------------------+------------------|
|Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, Bloom, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, Chang, | |
| | |Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, Jones, | |
| | |Quirk, Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Revises provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA) related to employee requests for accommodation.
AB 987
Page 2
Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer or
other covered entity to retaliate or otherwise discriminate
against a person for "requesting" an accommodation for physical
or mental disability or religious belief or observance,
regardless of whether the request was granted.
2)Makes related legislative findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Prohibits employment discrimination on account 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 or
veteran status.
2)Prohibits an employer or other covered entity to discharge,
expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the
person has opposed any practices forbidden under FEHA or because
the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any
proceeding under this part.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill will result in minor and absorbable costs to
the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).
COMMENTS: This legislation is in response to a recent California
Court of Appeal decision in Rope v. Auto-Clor System of
Washington, Inc., 220 Cal. App. 4th 635 (2013). The bill is
AB 987
Page 3
sponsored by the California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA),
who argues that it will clarify that an employee cannot be
retaliated against for requesting a reasonable accommodation for a
disability or religion. CELA states that, as a result of the Rope
decision, courts have dismissed cases where an employee was fired
or otherwise discriminated against in retaliation for simply
making a request for reasonable accommodation for a disability or
religion.
Without clarification, an employer can simply terminate an
employee who requests a reasonable accommodation, and the employee
will have no legal recourse to claim retaliation.
The sponsor and the author point to a number of recent cases in
which courts have relied on Rope in holding that a request for
accommodation is not protected activity for purposes of the
retaliation provisions of FEHA. This bill is needed to clarify
the law to ensure that workers' rights are not being violated.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0000193