BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 358
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
358 (Jackson)
As Amended July 9, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 38-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Labor |6-1 |Roger Hernández, Chu, |Harper |
| | |Low, McCarty, | |
| | |Patterson, Thurmond | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Judiciary |10-0 |Mark Stone, Wagner, | |
| | |Alejo, Chau, Chiu, | |
| | |Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Maienschein, | |
| | |O'Donnell | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
SB 358
Page 2
|Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Chang, | |
| | |Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Jones, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Makes various changes to the California Equal Pay Act
related to gender wage inequality. Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage
rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite
sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite
of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under
similar working conditions, except where the employer
demonstrates:
a) The pay differential is based upon one or more of the
following factors:
i) A seniority system;
ii) A merit system;
iii) A system that measures earnings by quantity or
SB 358
Page 3
quality of production; or
iv) A bona fide factor other than sex (such as
education, training, or experience) that is not based on
or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation,
is job related with respect to the position in question,
and is consistent with a business necessity;
b) Each factor relied upon is applied reasonably.
c) The one or more factors relied upon account for the
entire wage differential.
2)Extends the employer's record retention requirement from two
to three years.
3)Prohibits an employer from discharging, or in any manner
discriminating or retaliating against, any employee by reason
of any action taken by the employee to invoke or assist in any
manner the enforcement of the law.
4)Makes it unlawful for an employer to prohibit an employee from
disclosing the employee's own wages, discussing the wages of
others, inquiring about another employee's wages, or aiding or
encouraging any other employee to exercise his or her rights
under the law.
5)Extends the existing enforcement mechanisms, as specified, for
wage discrimination under existing law to claims for
retaliation, and provides a one year statute of limitations
for retaliation claims.
SB 358
Page 4
6)Authorizes any employee who has been discharged, discriminated
or retaliated against, in the terms and conditions of his or
her employment because the employee engaged in any conduct
delineated in the law to recover in a civil action
reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work
benefits, caused by the acts of the employer, including
interest thereon, as well as appropriate equitable relief.
7)Makes related legislative findings and declarations.
8) Makes several technical, non-substantive changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, one-time administrative costs of approximately
$127,000 (Labor Enforcement Compliance Fund - LECF) and ongoing
costs of approximately $120,000 (LECF) for the Department of
Industrial Relations to monitor and enforce provisions of the
bill.
COMMENTS: According to the author, while California has laws
which attempt to address pay inequality (including the
California Equal Pay Act), these provisions contain out-of-date
terms as well as loopholes that make it difficult to enforce in
practice. In addition, while other Labor Code provisions
prohibit retaliation against employees for disclosing wages,
there is currently no specific protection for inquiring about
the wages of other employees if the purpose of such inquiry is
to exercise one's right to be paid equally for equal work.
Therefore, this bill would require equal pay for work "of a
comparable character," revise other provisions of existing law
and discourage pay secrecy by explicitly prohibiting retaliation
or discrimination against employees who disclose, discuss, or
SB 358
Page 5
inquire about their own or co-workers' wages for the purpose of
enforcing their rights under the Equal Pay Act.
Supporters argue that this bill will strengthen California's
existing Equal Pay Act by eliminating loopholes that prevent
effective enforcement and powering employees to discuss pay
without fear of retaliation. Supporters specifically argue that
this bill will ensure employees performing substantially
equivalent work are paid fairly by requiring equal pay for work
of a comparable character, eliminating the outdated same
establishment requirement, by replacing the any bona fide factor
other than sex catch-all defense with more specific affirmative
defenses and strengthen protections for workers who inquire
about or discuss their wages or those of their coworkers.
The California National Organization for Women (NOW) writes that
while this bill goes a long way towards addressing the
substantive inequities of the original Equal Pay Act, these
improvements "must be accompanied by a broadening of claimants
to include all forms of invidious wage discrimination."
Therefore, California NOW opposes this bill unless amended to
include protections for wage discrimination based on these
additional categories.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN:
0001369
SB 358
Page 6