BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                    AB 1017

                                                                    Page  1


          1017 (Campos)

          As Amended  August 24, 2015

          Majority vote

          |ASSEMBLY:  |42-29 |(May 26, 2015) |SENATE: |23-14 |(September 1,    |
          |           |      |               |        |      |2015)            |
          |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
          |           |      |               |        |      |                 |

          Original Committee Reference:  L. & E.

          SUMMARY:  Prohibits the use of employee salary history  
          information, as specified, and enacts other requirements.

          The Senate amendments:

          1)Revise the bill to merely prohibit an employer from orally or  
            in writing, personally or through an agent, from seeking  
            salary history information, including, but not limited to,  
            compensation and benefits, about an applicant for employment.

          2)Provide that specified misdemeanor criminal provisions of  
            existing law do not apply to this bill. 

          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Senate Appropriations  


                                                                    AB 1017

                                                                    Page  2

          Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

          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 current protections exist in law to address pay  
          disparity and that this bill merely created additional avenues  
          of litigation.

          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091  FN:  


                                                                    AB 1017

                                                                    Page  3