BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 1509 (Roger Hernández) - Employees: protected disclosures
and complaints: retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 27, 2015 |Policy Vote: L. & I.R. 3 - 1, |
| | JUD. 5 - 2 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: July 13, 2015 |Consultant: Robert Ingenito |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill does not meet the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 1509 would extend current-law employment
retaliation protections to an employee who is a family member of
a person who engaged in, or is perceived to have engaged in,
legally protected conduct.
Fiscal
Impact: The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) indicates
that it would incur administrative costs (special funds) of
$120,000 in the first year, and $112,000 ongoing to implement
the provisions of the bill.
Background: Current law prohibits an employer from discharging,
AB 1509 (Roger Hernández) Page 1 of
?
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. Additionally, 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.
Proposed Law:
This bill would amend current law related to employment
retaliation to extend protections to an employee who is a family
member of a person who engaged in, or is perceived to have
engaged in, protected conduct, as specified. Specifically, the
bill would do the following.
Prohibit an employer, or a person acting on behalf of
the employer, from retaliating against an employee because
he/she is a family member of a person who has, or is
perceived to have, engaged in any protected activity under
existing law.
Provide that "employer" or "person acting on behalf of
the employer" for purposes of these employment retaliation
provisions includes a "client employer" or a "controlling
employer," as currently specified.
Specify that these provisions do not apply to claims
that are a result of demotion, suspension, or discharge
from employment for lawful conduct occurring during
nonworking hours away from the employer's premises, unless
the lawful conduct involves the exercise of employee rights
otherwise covered in law.
Staff
Comments: In 2013, the Labor Commissioner received 3,514
complaints of employer retaliation, a number that is likely
AB 1509 (Roger Hernández) Page 2 of
?
understated. Current law does not address retaliation protection
in cases where multiple family members work for the same
employer. Situations have occurred where one employee engaged in
protected activity, but the employer retaliated against the
employee's co-worker family member (such as terminating the
family member in retaliation for the others employee's protected
activity). Current law is unclear about whether such conduct is
unlawful. In at least one recent case (Su v. Siemens), current
law was deemed not to extend protection in such a situation. In
that case, a construction foreman made several safety-related
complaints, and the employer terminated the employer's son, who
also happened to be employed by the same employer.
DIR anticipates increased administrative costs of $120,000 in
the first year, and $112,000 ongoing to process additional
complaints resulting from the bill.
-- END --