BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1520 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 14, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mark Stone, Chair AB 1520 (Committee on Judiciary) - As Introduced March 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Civil rights KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE RALPH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BE CLARIFIED TO PREVENT FURTHER CONFUSION AMONG PARTIES AND THE COURTS? SYNOPSIS California's primary civil rights statutes include the Unruh Civil Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination in business establishments); the Ralph Civil Rights Act (prohibiting violence or intimidation against another based on protected characteristics; and the Bane Act (prohibiting the use of threats, intimidation, or coercion to prevent another from exercising a constitutional or statutory right). These laws deal with related but distinct issues, and have overlapping but unique application to various kinds of disputes. Because they are codified next to each other - sections 51 and 51.7 of the Civil Code - litigants and courts have frequently confused them, most frequently believing mistakenly that the Ralph Act is part of the Unruh Act. This confusion is natural because section 51 begins by declaring that it is the Unruh Civil Rights Act. By contrast, there is no similar identification of the Ralph Act that begins at section 51.7. Therefore, a reader may fail to AB 1520 Page 2 note that one act has concluded and another has begun. This bill would simply identify the Ralph Act by name in order to prevent further confusion among litigants, courts, and the public, consistent with the advice of a recent appeals court decision. This non-controversial bill has no opposition. In 2011 an identical measure passed out of this Committee and off the Assembly Floor unanimously but was never heard in the Senate. SUMMARY: Clarifies the Ralph Civil Rights Act. Specifically, this bill finds and declares that section 51.7 of the Civil Code was enacted as part of the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, in Chapter 1293 of the Statutes of 1976. EXISTING LAW: 1)Provides pursuant to the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, on account of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. (Civil Code section 51.7.) 2)Provides pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and regardless of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. (Civil Code section 51.) FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal. AB 1520 Page 3 COMMENTS: In support of the bill the author notes that California's primary civil rights statutes include the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Ralph Civil Rights Act. These laws deal with related but distinct issues and have overlapping but unique application to various kinds of disputes. Because they are codified next to each other - sections 51 and 51.7 of the Civil Code - litigants and courts have frequently confused them, most frequently believing mistakenly that the Ralph Act is part of the Unruh Act. This confusion is natural because section 51 begins by declaring that it is the Unruh Civil Rights Act. By contrast, there is no similar identification at the beginning of the Ralph Act (at section 51.7). Therefore, a reader may fail to note that one act has concluded and another has begun. This bill would simply identify the Ralph Act by name in order to prevent further confusion of the courts, litigants, and the public, consistent with the advice of a recent appeals court decision. This Bill Would Address Confusion That An Appeals Court Has Noted Among Courts and Parties: In Stamps v. Superior Court (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1441, the Second District Court of Appeal has observed that misunderstandings of the Unruh and Ralph Acts have been common among courts and parties. Because the court so clearly stated the issue and provided examples, the relevant portion of the opinion is reproduced below: The parties vigorously debate whether the sections under consideration are or are not part of the [Unruh] Act. Before we reach our destination, we gently observe a point that is beyond controversy: The courts generally have done a poor job of describing the various components of the Act. Not until 2002 did an appellate court tackle the issue head on. In Gatto, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th 744, the court was confronted with determining the statute of limitations for actions under sections 51 and 51.7. The case had nothing to do with employment discrimination; rather, a Hell's Angel was ejected from a county fair for not AB 1520 Page 4 removing his motorcycle club vest. The court refused to assume that the statutes of limitations for the two sections were necessarily the same. Instead, it initially reflected on the lack of precision in describing the components of the Act. By its own terms, the Unruh Civil Rights Act comprises only section 51. Subdivision (a) of section 51 states: "This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act." The courts, however, have consistently described as Unruh Civil Rights Act claims causes of action based under seemingly related provisions set forth in sections of the Civil Code that follow section 51. West Shield is a good example. That case presented no claim of denial of full and equal accommodations in violation of section 51; however, the court treated causes of action alleging interference with the exercise of constitutional rights under section 52.1, and sexual harassment under section 51.9 as Unruh Civil Rights Act claims. Similarly, section 51.9 was treated as an 'Unruh Civil Rights Act claim' in Brown v. Smith (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 767, 774-775 as was section 54.1 in Independent Housing Services (1993) 840 F. Supp. 1328. Citing several state and federal opinions, the court in Doe v. Petaluma City School Dist. (N.D.Cal. 1993) 830 F. Supp. 1560 stated that '[i]t appears that section 52.1 is at least a "component" of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.' (Id. at p. 1581.) It is noteworthy, however, that in construing section 52.1, our Supreme Court explained that it was enacted by the Legislature 'to stem a tide of hate crimes' (Jones v. Kmart Corp. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 329, 338) and never referred to it as part of the Unruh Civil Rights Act which, at least originally, dealt only with the issue of equal accommodations. Other courts have referred to section 52.1 and related statutes, including section 51.7, as part of the Bane Act. (See, e.g., Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 141, 144; Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1797, 1809.) In re Joshua H. (1993) AB 1520 Page 5 13 Cal.App.4th 1734 also refers to section 52.1 as part of the Bane Act but refers to section 51.7 as the 'Ralph Civil Rights Act.' (Boccato, at p. 1748, fn. 9.) Reference to a statute or statutory scheme by the name of its author does not influence the meaning and effect of the enactment, but an erroneous denotation that includes one measure as part of another may obscure differences that are legally very significant. This is what appears to have happened to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which is increasingly treated as an omnibus antidiscrimination statute no longer limited to merely ensuring equal access to accommodations. For purposes of determining the applicable statute of limitations, this creates a problem, for the provisions now seen as parts of the Unruh Civil Rights Act do not all share the same common law provenance." (Gatto, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th 744, 757-758.) Although the Gatto court does not unequivocally hold that sections 51.7 and 52.1 are not part of the Act, we are not so reserved: We conclude neither section is part of a properly denominated Act. This conclusion is based largely on the legislative history that we have described ante and is consistent with that reached by two commentators in the civil rights litigation field. Their treatise devotes entire sections to two subjects: "Ralph Act is not part of the Unruh Act or FEHA," and "Bane Act is not part of the Unruh Act, the Ralph Act or another statute." (Kahn & Links, Cal. Civil Practice: Civil Rights Litigation (2005) § 314, p. 27, § 327, p. 50.) REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: AB 1520 Page 6 Support None on file Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by:Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334