BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1017 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 1017 (Campos) As Amended May 18, 2015 Majority vote ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+------+--------------------+--------------------| |Labor |5-2 |Roger Hernández, |Harper, Patterson | | | |Chu, Low, McCarty, | | | | |Thurmond | | | | | | | |----------------+------+--------------------+--------------------| |Appropriations |11-5 |Gomez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, | | | |Bonta, Calderon, |Gallagher, Jones, | | | |Eggman, Eduardo |Wagner | | | |Garcia, Holden, | | | | |Quirk, Rendon, | | | | |Weber, Wood | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Prohibits the use of employee salary history information, as specified, and enacts other requirements. Specifically, this bill: 1)Prohibits an employer from seeking salary history information, including compensation and benefits, from an applicant for AB 1017 Page 2 employment for an interview or as a condition of employment. 2)Prohibits an employer from releasing the salary history of any current or former employee to any prospective employer without written authorization from the current or former employee. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill has no direct state impact as this bill does not mandate enforcement by the Labor Commissioner nor provide for a civil penalty for employers who violate the provisions of this bill. COMMENTS: This bill is sponsored by the California Employment Lawyers Association and the American Association of University Women who argue that our slow rate of progress on eliminating gender pay inequality is due at least in part because we have allowed employers to preserve historical inequities. According to the sponsors, because changing jobs is often the best opportunity women have to increase their pay we need to make sure they are not penalized by prior salaries that may well have been discriminatory. They state that policies that peg current salary to prior pay by default, ignore that the prior salary earned by a male job applicant may itself be the product of sex discrimination or may reflect the residual effects of the traditionally enhanced value attached to the kind of work usually performed by men. A coalition of employers, including the California Chamber of Commerce, opposes this bill and states that, despite the assumption that employers have accurate wage information on what the current market is for all potential job positions, they often do not. By requesting salary information, employers can adjust any unrealistic expectations or salary ranges to match the current market rate for the advertised job position. This has worked to the benefit of the applicant/employee. Opponents argue that AB 1017 Page 3 current protections exist in law to address pay disparity and that this bill merely created additional avenues of litigation. Analysis Prepared by: Benjamin Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0000427