BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1017
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB
1017 (Campos)
As Enrolled September 8, 2015
2/3 vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |42-29 |(May 26, 2015) |SENATE: |23-14 |(September 1, |
| | | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |42-33 |(September 3, | | | |
| | |2015) | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. & E.
SUMMARY: Prohibits the use of employee salary history
information, as specified, and enacts other requirements.
The Senate amendments:
AB 1017
Page 2
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
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
AB 1017
Page 3
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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
This bill would prohibit an employer from seeking salary
information from an applicant for employment.
I agree with the sponsors that we must endeavor to ensure that
all workers are paid fairly and do not receive a lower wage
because of their gender or any other immutable characteristic
that has no bearing on how they will perform in their job. This
year, I signed SB 358 that gives California the strongest equal
pay law in the nation. This bill, however, broadly prohibits
employers from obtaining relevant information with little
evidence that this would assure more equitable wages. Let's give
SB 358 a chance to work before making further changes.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN:
0002495
AB 1017
Page 4