BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    ”



                                                                    AB 1509


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  May 6, 2015


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                                 Jimmy Gomez, Chair


          AB  
          1509 (Roger HernŠndez) - 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  
            HernŠndez), 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