BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 600 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 30, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mark Stone, Chair SB 600 (Pan) - As Amended May 18, 2015 SENATE VOTE: 30-9 SUBJECT: DISCRIMINATION: CITIZENSHIP: LANGUAGE: IMMIGRATION STATUS KEY ISSUE: SHOULD it be clarified in state law that arbitrary discrimination by businesses on the basis of citizenship, primary language, or immigration status IS specifically prohibited by the state's unruh civil rights act? SYNOPSIS This bill, co-sponsored by the California Civil Rights Coalition and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), seeks to expand the list of protected characteristics in the Unruh Act to specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of immigration status, primary language, and citizenship. According to the author and sponsors, enough ambiguity exists about whether the Unruh Act protects against discrimination based on immigration status, citizenship, and primary language that it is worthwhile to clarify that the Act specifically prohibits discrimination on these bases. Because citizenship, immigration status, and SB 600 Page 2 language are changeable characteristics, and sometimes relevant considerations under the law, proponents express concern that some businesses may conclude that these characteristics are not similar enough to other protected characteristics now currently specified in the Unruh Act, and therefore may not be protected from discrimination under the Act pursuant to case law, specifically, Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV(1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142. In some analogous contexts, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that national origin and race are characteristics that are distinct from citizenship and primary language, but at the same time has recognized that permissible discrimination based on citizenship and language may be used as a pretext for impermissible discrimination on the basis of national origin or race. According to proponents, this bill would help prevent this kind of pretextual discrimination by clarifying that citizenship and language discrimination, as well as immigration status discrimination, are specifically prohibited under the Unruh Act. The bill is supported by many civil rights organizations, immigrant advocates, and labor unions and has no known opposition. SUMMARY: Amends the Unruh Act to expressly prohibit discrimination by business establishments on the basis of citizenship, primary language, and immigration status. Specifically, this bill: 1)Includes citizenship, primary language, and immigration status among the list of characteristics for which discrimination is specifically prohibited under the Unruh Act. 2)Provides that verification of immigration status and any discrimination based upon verified immigration status, where required by federal law, shall not constitute a violation of SB 600 Page 3 the Unruh Act. 3)Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to require the provision of services or documents in a language other than English, beyond that which is otherwise required by other provisions of federal, state, or local law, including Civil Code Section 1632. 4)Finds that these provisions do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law. Further states that it is not the intent of the Legislature in amending the Unruh Act to affect the protected status of any other classification, whether or not expressed in the Act itself. EXISTING LAW: Pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"): 1)Generally prohibits business establishments from arbitrary discrimination on the basis of certain personal characteristics. 2)Specifically, the Unruh Act provides that all persons in California are free and equal, and regardless of a person's sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation, everyone is entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments. (Civil Code Section 51.) 3)Provides that "past judicial interpretation of the Act, and SB 600 Page 4 the history of legislative action that extended the statutes' scope, indicate that identification of particular bases of discrimination - color, race, religion, ancestry, and national origin, etc. . . . is illustrative rather than restrictive." (In re Cox (1970) 3 Cal.3d 205, 216.) Pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): 4)Prohibits discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. (Government Code Section 12920 et seq.) 5)Provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to adopt or enforce a policy that prohibits the use of any language in the workplace, except if that policy is justified by "business necessity" and prescribed notice of the policy and consequences for violation of the policy is given to employees, as specified. (Government Code Section 12951.) FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal. COMMENTS: This bill, co-sponsored by the California Civil Rights Coalition and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), seeks to expand the list of protected characteristics in the Unruh Act to specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of immigration status, primary language, and citizenship. Stated Need for the Bill. According to the author: SB 600 Page 5 The Unruh Act provides protection against arbitrary discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation, but is silent on immigration status, language and citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court has held in 1973, and again in 1991, that "citizenship" and "language" are not the same as "national origin", and that federal constitutional civil rights protections are not covered by the "national origin" characteristic. Neither case has been overruled, and both remain binding law. Therefore, there is a need to protect these individuals from discrimination in the Unruh Civil Rights Act. [W]ith the debate surrounding immigration reform, and the newly created programs under the President for immigration relief for DACA and DAPA beneficiaries, we believe the bill is necessary to guard against discrimination faced by immigrants. The California Civil Rights Coalition (CCRC), co-sponsor of the bill, contends that it is needed to ensure that our state laws clearly and comprehensively protect against discrimination. CCRC states: Prevention of discrimination is far superior to remedying discrimination after it has occurred. CCRC therefore supports greater clarity in all of our civil rights laws. SB 600 addresses this goal with respect to business discrimination against immigrants. In addition, our economy and every business that contributes to our economy will thrive if the SB 600 Page 6 distortions in competition caused by discrimination are avoided. Background on the Unruh Act. Civil Code Section 51, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, is considered one of the cornerstones of antidiscrimination law in California, and specifically prohibits business establishments from denying equal accommodations and services on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation. The true scope of protection under the Unruh Act is actually even more broad than these categories because the California Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Unruh Act in an expansive way, holding that it is meant to cover all arbitrary and intentional discrimination by business establishments. In a landmark 1970 case, the Court held that the Unruh Act forbids a business establishment that is generally open to the public from arbitrarily excluding a prospective customer (In re Cox 3 (1970) Cal.3d 205.) In a detailed analysis of the Unruh Act, the Court determined the "past judicial interpretation of the act, and the history of legislative action that extended the statutes' scope, indicate that identification of particular bases of discrimination - color, race, religion, ancestry, and national origin . . . is illustrative rather than restrictive. (Emphasis added.) Although the legislation has been invoked primarily by persons alleging discrimination on racial grounds, its language and its history compel the conclusion that the Legislature intended to prohibit all arbitrary discrimination by business establishments." (Id. at p. 216.) The Court has also concluded, however, that prohibited discrimination, if unspecified, must be similar to the kinds of characteristics listed in the statute. Thus, in rejecting coverage of discrimination on the basis of financial or economic status, the Court held that the Unruh Act prohibits SB 600 Page 7 discrimination based on "the classifications listed in the Act . . . or similar personal traits, beliefs, or characteristics that bear no relationship to the responsibilities of consumers of public accommodations." (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1169.) In recent years, the Legislature has enacted several bills amending the Unruh Act to expressly cover new classifications. In 2005, AB 1400 (Laird), Ch. 420, Stats. 2005, added marital status and sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics specified in the Act. The purpose of that legislation was to address repeated complaints from individuals and attorneys representing victims of discrimination based on marital status and sexual orientation who claimed difficulty enforcing these protections because they were not expressly specified in the law. In 2011, AB 887 (Atkins), Ch. 719, Stats. 2011, was enacted to expressly add "gender identity" and "gender expression" throughout both Unruh and FEHA, and to define "gender expression" to mean a person's gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth. That same year, SB 559 (Padilla), Ch. 261, Stats. 2011, was enacted to add genetic information as a protected characteristic under the Unruh Act, FEHA, and other anti-discrimination statutes. This bill seeks to ensure that discrimination based on immigration status, citizenship, or primary language spoken is prohibited under the Unruh Act. According to the author and sponsors, enough ambiguity exists about whether the Unruh Act protects against discrimination based on immigration status, citizenship, and primary language that it is worthwhile to clarify that the Act specifically prohibits discrimination on those bases. Co-sponsor MALDEF states: "It helps no one - least of all the businesses required to comply with the Unruh Act - to require Californians to parse court opinions to reach a debatable conclusion about how to comply with the law. . . California should provide clear notice to business proprietors SB 600 Page 8 that they [should not make] the erroneous conclusion that they may discriminate in public accommodations." Because citizenship, immigration status, and language are changeable characteristics, and sometimes relevant consideration under other law, proponents are apparently concerned that some businesses may conclude that these characteristics are not similar to those characteristics currently specified in the Unruh Act, and are instead more like the characteristic of economic status which was determined by the Harris court to not be a prohibited form of discrimination under the Act. A. Citizenship and primary language. With respect to citizenship and language, proponents may be concerned that previous court cases may lead some California court to conclude in the future that these characteristics are too different from existing Unruh protected characteristics and therefore not protected from discrimination under the Unruh Act. In some analogous contexts, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that national origin and race are distinct from citizenship and primary language. For example, in Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co. (1973) 414 U.S. 86, the Court held that while Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of national origin, it does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of citizenship. The Court commented that "national origin" on its face refers to the country where a person was born or from which the person's ancestors came, and that the Congressional record only supported this interpretation. (Id. at pp. 88-89.) Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no reason to believe Congress intended for the term "national origin" to have any broader scope. (Id. at p. 91.) In Hernandez v. New York (1991) 500 U.S. 352, the Court held that while the constitution protects individuals from discrimination based on their race in jury selection, that protection does not include protection from discrimination based SB 600 Page 9 on the language spoken by that individual. In that case, the Court stated that the prosecutor's dismissal of jurors based on the language they spoke was "race-neutral," and even if it resulted in a disproportionate removal of Latinos from juries, that did not rise to a per se violation of the Equal Protection Clause. (Id. at p. 361.) Where there is a Supreme Court precedent establishing that citizenship and language are distinct from nationality and race, and that prohibiting discrimination based on the latter does not prohibit discrimination based on the former, the Unruh Act's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality and race can arguable be said to not impliedly also prohibit discrimination on the basis of citizenship or language spoken. It is also important to note that in both Espinoza and Hernández, the Court commented that permissible discrimination based on citizenship and language may be used as a pretext for impermissible discrimination on the basis of national origin or race. According to proponents, this bill would help prevent this kind of pretextual discrimination by clarifying that citizenship and language discrimination are specifically prohibited by the Unruh Act. An argument can also be made that language discrimination is already prohibited by the Unruh Act when it is pretext for discrimination based on national origin. Such an argument was made by Gov. Brown in his veto message of SB 111 (Yee) of 2011. As heard by this Committee, SB 111 would have made it a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act to adopt or enforce a policy that limited or prohibited the use of any language in a business establishment, unless the language is justified by a business necessity and notification has been provided of the circumstances and the time when the language restriction is required to be observed, and of the consequences for its violation. SB 600 Page 10 SB 111 was ultimately vetoed by Governor Brown, who stated: "Existing law already prohibits businesses from limiting the use of language without a business necessity. In addition, existing law specifically protects against discrimination based on language when it is used as a pretext to discriminate against persons due to their national origin." This bill would clarify that under the Unruh Act, discrimination based on language is specifically prohibited, whether the discrimination is direct or used as a pretext for national origin discrimination. B. Immigration Status. While no case has directly held that immigration status is covered within Unruh, it would appear consistent with existing law which prohibits arbitrary discrimination based upon personal characteristics. (Harris v. Capitol Growth Investors XIV, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1169.) In addition, existing law prohibits discrimination based upon national origin, of which immigrants are a subset. In order to ensure protection against impermissible discrimination based upon the category of "national origin," discrimination against members of any subset of that category must also be prohibited under existing law. This concept is supported by the history of the Unruh Act, and by analogous case law. (See Vaughn v. Neu Proler International (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d.1612, 1617, at fn. 2.) As with language discrimination, an argument has been made that discrimination based on immigration status is already prohibited by the Unruh Act when it is pretext for discrimination based on national origin. In 1999, AB 407 (Cedillo) sought to add discrimination based on immigration status to the list of characteristics protected under the Unruh Act. That bill was ultimately vetoed by then-Governor Davis, who stated in his veto message his belief that "all residents of California, regardless of immigration status, are already protected from discrimination based in their personal characteristics, specifically ethnic SB 600 Page 11 origin and nationality." This bill would further clarify that the Unruh Act specifically protects against discrimination based on immigration status, whether occurring directly or used as a pretext for national origin discrimination. In light of ongoing debate about immigration reform and the President's recent executive actions establishing the DAPA and DACA programs, the author and sponsor contend such clarification to the Unruh Act is warranted. In support, CCRC states: At the national level, immigration reform and immigrant integration remain politically controversial. Unfortunately, our state, as a critical part of the nation, cannot be totally immune from the influence of our nation's increasingly contentious and debased public debate on the issue. We can, however, limit the impacts of the increasing demonization of immigrants in public discourse by enacting sensible legislation like SB 600. Provisions to respect existing law on verification of immigration status and translation requirements. In order to ensure that this bill does not create unintended conflicts with existing laws on verification of immigration status and translation of documents into languages other than English, the author has previously amended the bill accordingly. The bill currently provides that verification of immigration status and any discrimination based upon verified immigration status, where required by federal law, shall not constitute a violation of this section. In addition, the bill clarifies that none of its provisions shall be construed to require the provision of services or documents in a language other than English, beyond that which is otherwise required by other provisions of federal, state, or local law, including Section 1632 of the Civil Code. This is similar to language in SB 111 (Yee) that also specified SB 600 Page 12 that the bill was not to be construed to impose a duty on any business establishment to provide customer service in a particular language unless that duty is otherwise required by law. By adding these qualifications, the bill seeks to avoid infringing on any federal laws that may create a preemption or overreach-based conflict. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support California Civil Rights Coalition (co-sponsor) Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) (co-sponsor) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Anti-Defamation League Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Sacramento ASPIRE California Civil Rights Coalition SB 600 Page 13 California Equity Leaders Network California Immigrant Policy Center California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF) California Teachers Association Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) Equality California Friends Committee on Legislation of California Immigration Center for Women and Children (ICWC) Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance (CIYJA) National Association of Social Workers National Council of La Raza SB 600 Page 14 Services Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN) Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by:Anthony Lew and Estevan Villareal/ JUD. / (916) 319-2334