BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1509
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1509 (Roger Hernández)
As Amended April 27, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
|----------------+------+---------------------+----------------------|
|Labor |5-2 |Roger Hernández, |Harper, Patterson |
| | |Chu, Low, McCarty, | |
| | |Thurmond | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+----------------------|
|Appropriations |12-5 |Gomez, Bloom, Bonta, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Calderon, Daly, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo |Wagner |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Quirk, Rendon, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Revises various provisions of law related to employment
retaliation. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that an employer, or a person acting on behalf of an
employer, shall not retaliate against an employee because the
employee is a family member of a person who has engaged in
AB 1509
Page 2
protected activity under existing law.
2)Provides that "employer" for purposes of these employment
retaliation provisions includes a "client employer" or a
"controlling employer," as specified.
3)Provides that specified provisions of this bill do not apply to
claims related to lawful conduct occurring during nonwork hours
away from the employer's premises unless the conduct involves
the exercise of employee rights otherwise covered under existing
law.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill will result in administrative costs to the
Department of Industrial Relations in the range of $110,000 to
$120,000 (special funds) to process complaints.
COMMENTS: According to the author, California law contains a
strong public policy to protect employees from retaliation for
exercising their rights. This is an acknowledgement of the fact
that substantive labor and employment laws are meaningless if
workers are reluctant to exercise their rights for fear of
employer retaliation.
According to the author, recent cases and examples highlight
several major gaps in existing California statutes that prohibit
retaliation against employees for engaging in protected activity.
This bill will close those gaps in order to protect California
workers.
Supporters state that this bill will fill in the gaps in the law
of retaliation by clarifying that existing prohibitions against
retaliation apply to a "client employer" or a "controlling
AB 1509
Page 3
employer." In addition, it will clarify that an employer cannot
retaliate against a worker because that worker is related to
another worker who engaged in protected activity.
There is no opposition on file.
Analysis Prepared by:
Benjamin Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN:
0000269