BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 987
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
987 (Levine)
As Amended May 27, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | 76-0 | (April 27, |SENATE: | 39-0 | (June 29, 2015) |
| | |2015) | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. & E.
SUMMARY: Revises provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA) related to employee requests for accommodation.
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.
The Senate amendments add a co-author and make technical
AB 987
Page 2
changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
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). This bill is
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: 0001095
AB 987
Page 3