BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1676
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
1676 (Campos and Gonzalez)
As Amended August 19, 2016
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |47-29 |(June 2, 2016) |SENATE: |38-0 |(August 23, |
| | | | | |2016) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. & E.
SUMMARY: Provides that prior salary cannot, by itself, justify
any disparity in compensation.
The Senate amendments:
1)Remove all sections related to prohibiting employers from
seeking previous salary information of prospective employees,
and other provisions.
2)Require that prior salary shall not, by itself, justify any
disparity in compensation under the bona fide factor exception
of employee salary history information, as specified.
AB 1676
Page 2
3)Provide for findings and declarations related to wage
discrimination.
4)Provides technical changes to address chaptering concerns with
SB 1063 (Hall) of the current legislative session.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Prohibits an employer from paying an employee at wage rates
less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in
the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance
of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and
which are performed under similar working conditions.
2)Establishes exceptions to this prohibition where the payment
is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a
system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of
production, or a differential based on any bona fide factor
other than sex.
3)Makes it a misdemeanor for an employer or other person acting
either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of
another person to pay or cause to be paid to any employee a
wage less than the rate paid to an employee of the opposite
sex as required by these provisions, or who reduces the wages
of any employee in order to comply with these provisions.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS: The author argues that, because changing jobs is
often the best opportunity women have to increase their pay; we
need to make sure they are not penalized by prior salaries that
may well have been discriminatory. The impact of prior salaries
AB 1676
Page 3
is particularly concerning in certain industries and across
racial lines.
Similarly, supporters of this bill argue that, "by creating a
less biased structure for negotiating pay during the hiring
process, this bill will be a proactive way to help empower women
to negotiate a fair salary and hopefully get us closer to
achieving pay equity in California."
AB 1017 (Campos) of 2015 was similar but not identical to this
bill. AB 1017 was vetoed by Governor Brown. The Governor's
veto message stated:
I agree with the sponsors that we must endeavor to ensure
that all workers are paid fairly and do not receive a lower
wage because of their gender or any other immutable
characteristic that has no bearing on how they will perform
in their job. This year, I signed SB 358 [(Jackson),
Chapter 546, Statutes of 2015] that gives California the
strongest equal pay law in the nation. This bill, however,
broadly prohibits employers from obtaining relevant
information with little evidence that this would assure more
equitable wages. Let's give SB 358 a chance to work before
making further changes. 0004757
Analysis Prepared by:
Taylor Jackson / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN:
0004757
AB 1676
Page 4