BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1509
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
1509 (Roger Hernández) - As Amended April 27, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Labor and Employment |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill prohibits an employer, or a person acting on behalf of
an employer, from retaliating against an employee because the
employee is a family member of a person who has engaged in
protected activity under existing law. Further, provides for
AB 1509
Page 2
protections related to lawful conduct occurring during
nonworking hours. "Employer" for purposes of these employment
retaliation provisions includes a "client employer" or a
"controlling employer," as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Administrative costs to the Department of Industrial Relations
(DIR) in there range of $110,000 to $120,000 (special funds) to
process complaints. It is not known how many complaints will be
generated by this bill. For context, in 2013 the Labor
Commissioner received approximately 3,500 complaints of employer
retaliation.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. Current law prohibits an employer from
discharging, retaliating, or taking other adverse employment
action against an employee because the employee has engaged in
protected conduct, as specified, such as filing a complaint or
claim with the Labor Commissioner. Further, AB 1897 (Roger
Hernández), Chapter 728, Statutes of 2014, established client
employer liability for certain violations for workers provided
by a labor contractor. AB 1897 defined a "client employer" to
mean a business entity that obtains or is provided workers to
perform labor within its usual course of business from a labor
contractor.
2)Purpose. According to the author, existing law does not
address retaliation in the situation where an employer employs
several individuals who happen to be family members.
Situations have arisen in which one employee will engage in
protected activity, but the employer will retaliate against
the employee's family member (such as terminating the family
AB 1509
Page 3
member in retaliation for the others employee's protected
activity). Current law is unclear about whether such conduct
is unlawful. This bill provides that an employer shall not
retaliate against an employee because the employee is a family
member of a person who has engaged in protected activity.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081