BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    ”

                                                                      AB 1509

                                                                      Page  1


          1509 (Roger HernŠndez)

          As Amended  April 27, 2015

          Majority vote

          |Committee       |Votes |Ayes                 |Noes                  |
          |Labor           |5-2   |Roger HernŠndez,     |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  

          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  

          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: