BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    ”

                                                                      AB 1017

                                                                      Page  1


          1017 (Campos)

          As Amended  May 18, 2015

          Majority vote

          |Committee       |Votes |Ayes                |Noes                |
          |                |      |                    |                    |
          |                |      |                    |                    |
          |Labor           |5-2   |Roger HernŠndez,    |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  

          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: