BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  June 28, 2016





                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY


                                  Mark Stone, Chair


          SB  
          899 (Hueso) - As Amended June 13, 2016


                       VOTE ONLY (As Proposed to be Amended) 

          SENATE VOTE:  22-12


          SUBJECT:  Gender discrimination:  pricing


          KEY ISSUE:  should a business be prohibited from charging  
          different prices for substantialLy similar products based on the  
          assumed gender of the consumer of that product?


                                      SYNOPSIS


          The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits a business establishment  
          from discriminating against a person based on a number of  
          protected characteristics, including but not limited to a  
          person's sex.  Although the Unruh Civil Rights Act apparently  
          already prohibited price discrimination in goods and services  
          based on a person's gender, the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995  
          nonetheless expressly stated that a business could not  








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  2





          discriminate with respect to the price charged for services of a  
          like or similar kind based on a person's gender.  In particular,  
          this Act had in mind differential pricing for women's dry  
          cleaning and haircuts, as well as other personal services.  This  
          bill would amend the Gender Tax Repeal Act to prohibit  
          gender-based price discrimination in the sale of goods as well  
          as services.  The author, sponsor, and supporters of this bill  
          contend that for products that do not differ in terms of labor,  
          materials, or related production or marketing costs, it is  
          unfair to charge more based on the gender of the intended  
          consumer.  Opponents, on the other hand, contend that this bill  
          ignores other market factors that determine prices and that it  
          will force retailers to make two arbitrary determinations: (1)  
          to which gender a particular product is targeted; and (2) when  
          two goods are "of a substantially similar or like kind."  This  
          bill was presented at last week's hearing and subject to  
          extensive debate by supporters, opponents, and members of the  
          Committee.  The author agreed to consider additional amendments  
          to address the major concerns raised in Committee.  The author  
          proposes to further amend the bill in this Committee in order to  
          clarify that the gender discrimination is relevant to the  
          intended user of the good, as opposed to the person charged the  
          different price for the good.  The summary immediately below  
          reflects the amendments to the bill that the author proposes to  
          take in Committee today.  A mock-up of the proposed amendments  
          appears immediately after the support and opposition arguments  
          beginning on the top of page 9 of the analysis.  The body of the  
          analysis (other than the bill summary) reflects the bill in  
          print, as do the arguments in support and opposition.  The  
          Committee will "vote only" on the bill as it is proposed to be  
          amended by the author, without taking additional testimony from  
          support and opposition witnesses, because the general policy  
          issues about the bill were fully debated last week.  Although  
          the author's revised proposed amendments address a number of  
          issues raised by the Committee regarding the author's originally  
          proposed wording, there is no indication that they affect either  
          the support for, or the opposition to, the bill as of last  
          week's hearing on the bill.  









                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  3






          SUMMARY:  Prohibits a business establishment from  
          discriminating, with respect to the price charged for goods of a  
          substantially similar or like kind, against a person because of  
          the person's gender.  Specifically, this bill:  


          1)Provides that no business establishment of any kind whatsoever  
            may discriminate, with respect to the price charged for goods  
            of a substantially similar or like kind, because of the gender  
            of the targeted user of the good.  Specifies that a good is  
            targeted to a particular gender if the good is designed or  
            intended to be used by, or appeal to, a consumer of the good  
            based on his or her gender, as evidenced by either of the  
            following:


             a)   The content of any marketing materials, advertising  
               materials, or packaging would suggest to a reasonable  
               person that the product is targeted to a specific gender. 


             b)   The business establishment placed the product in a  
               location that was labeled for a specific gender. 


          2)Provides that nothing in the provisions of the bill prohibit  
            price differences based on gender-neutral factors including,  
            but not limited to, labor, materials, tariffs, or inventory  
            management. 


          3)Provides, for purposes of the above,  that goods are of a  
            "substantially similar or like kind" if they do all of the  
            following:


             a)   Share the same brand, kind, and quality. 









                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  4






             b)   Share the same functional components.


             c)   Share 90% of the same materials or ingredients. 


          4)Provides that nothing in the provisions of this bill shall  
            prohibit a retail establishment from passing through a price  
            to the consumer that is set by a manufacturer, distributer, or  
            other entity that the retailer cannot control. 


          5)Specifies that for purposes of this bill "goods" shall not  
            include food, as defined in Section 12503 of the Food and  
            Agriculture Code, or goods sold by a "new motor vehicle  
            dealer," as defined in the Section 426 of the Vehicle Code. 


          EXISTING LAW:   


          1)Provides, under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, that all persons  
            within this state are free and equal, and no matter what their  
            sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,  
            disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital  
            status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or  
            immigration status are entitled to the full and equal  
            accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or  
            services in all business establishments of any kind whatsover.  
             (Civil Code Section 51.) 


          2)Provides, under the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, that no  
            business establishment of any kind whatsover may discriminate,  
            with respect to the price charged for services of similar or  
            like kind, against a person because of the person's gender.  
            However, nothing in this provision prohibits price differences  
            based specifically on the amount of time, difficulty, or cost  








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  5





            of providing the services.  (Civil Code Section 51.6.)


          3)Provides that any person who violates either of the above  
            provisions is liable for each offense for actual damages, and  
            any amount that may be determined by a judge or jury, up to a  
            maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no  
            case no less than $4,000, and any attorney's fees determined  
            by the court.  (Civil Code Section 52.) 


          FISCAL EFFECT:  As currently in print this bill is keyed  
          non-fiscal. 


          COMMENTS:  The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits a business  
          establishment from discriminating against a person based on a  
          number of protected characteristics, including but not limited  
          to a person's sex or gender.  Although the Unruh Civil Rights  
          Act arguably already prohibited price discrimination in goods  
          and services based on a person's gender, the Gender Tax Repeal  
          Act of 1995 nonetheless expressly stated that a business could  
          not discriminate with respect to the price charged for  
          "services" of a like or similar kind based on a person's gender.  
           In particular, this Act had in mind differential pricing for  
          women's dry cleaning and haircuts, among other personal  
          services.  This bill would amend the Gender Tax Repeal Act to  
          prohibit gender-based price discrimination in the sale of goods  
          as well as services.


          Studies on Gender-Based Pricing Discrimination:  In the past  
          three decades a number of studies have documented examples of  
          sharp differences between the prices of comparable goods  
          depending upon whether the goods are designed for, or marketed  
          to, men or women.  A 1992 study by the New York City Department  
          of Consumer Affairs, found that when women bought used cars,  
          they were twice as likely to be quoted a higher price as men.   
          The same study, based on a survey of 80 hair salons in New York  








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  6





          City, found that, on average, women paid 25 percent more for the  
          same haircuts as men and 27 percent more for the identical  
          service of laundering a basic white cotton shirt.  More  
          recently, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs  
          issued a report in December of 2015 and found that little had  
          changed since 1992.  The study examined 800 products, with  
          purportedly male and female versions, that were offered both  
          online and in stores.  The report concluded that 42% of the time  
          women's products cost more than similar products for men and on  
          average cost 7% more.  The products include children's toys and  
          clothing, adult clothing, personal care products, and health  
          care products.   


          Closer to home, in the 1990s the California Legislature held  
          hearings and conducted a survey that found results similar to  
          the New York studies.  For example, a survey of five California  
          cities conducted by the Assembly Office of Research found that  
          40% of haircutting establishments surveyed charged women, on  
          average, five dollars more than men for a haircut, and 64% of  
          dry cleaning and laundry establishments charged women, on  
          average, $1.71 more to clean a simple white shirt.  The  
          California Senate Judiciary Committee analysis for AB 1100,  
          which enacted the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, cited research  
          showing that pricing discrimination - dubbed a "gender tax" -  
          cost "each woman approximately $1,351 annually, or about $15  
          million for all women in California." (For a summary of this and  
          other studies reaching similar results see Jennifer Kerr,  
          "Gender Equity Bill Wins Assembly Approval," Orange County  
          Register May, 27, 1994; and Comment, Harvard Law Review 109 (May  
          1996) 1839-1944.) 


          It should be noted, however, that many of the price differences  
          noted in these studies would not necessarily be prohibited by  
          this bill.  For example, some of the higher price differences  
          appear to be in women's clothing, beauty products, and personal  
          care products, such as shampoos, conditioners, and deodorants  
          presumably designed for women's physiology.  So long as those  








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  7





          products are in fact different, in terms of materials,  
          ingredients, design, or overall quality, they would not be  
          products that are "goods of a substantially similar or like  
          kind."  In other cases, where the only apparent differences  
          between the products are merely color or packaging, then a  
          gender-based price differential would clearly violate the  
          provisions of this bill.  


          Koire v. Metro Car Wash and the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995:   
          California's first response to the problem of gender pricing  
          discrimination came not from the Legislature but from the  
          courts.  In Koire v. Metro Car Wash, the California Supreme  
          Court was asked to decide whether the Unruh Civil Rights Act  
          (Civil Code Section 51) prohibited sex-based price discounts.   
          In this case, the male plaintiff had visited several car washes  
          that offered female customers a discount on "Ladies' Day."  He  
          asked to have his car washed at the discounted price but was  
          refused, presumably because he was a male.  The same plaintiff  
          also visited several night clubs that offered free admission to  
          women on "Ladies' Night."  Once again the plaintiff sought the  
          free admission, but was once again refused.  Eventually the  
          plaintiff filed a suit against seven car washes and one night  
          club alleging violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.  The  
          language of the Unruh Act, as the Court noted, "is clear and  
          unambiguous."  It prohibits a business establishment from  
          denying any person "full and equal accommodations, advantages,  
          facilities, privileges, or services" on the basis of sex.   
          Although the business defendants argued that the Unruh Act only  
          prohibited the "exclusion" of a member of a protected class from  
          a business establishment, the California Supreme Court rejected  
          this narrow reading, noting that the Act not only guarantees  
          access but, once there, "full and equal advantages, facilities,  
          privileges, or services."  The Legislature's choice of words,  
          the Court reasoned, shows concern "not only with access to  
          business establishments, but with equal treatment of patrons in  
          all aspects of the business."  (Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985)  
          40 Cal. 3d 24, 29.)  The Court held, therefore, that the Unruh  
          Act prohibited the sex-based price discounts offered by the  








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  8





          several car washes and the nightclub to female patrons.  The  
          Court added that price discrimination based on sex not only  
          harmed the male plaintiff, it was "generally detrimental to both  
          men and women because it reinforces harmful stereotypes."


          Despite the California Supreme Court's holding that the general  
          language of the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibited sex-based  
          price discrimination, in 1995 the Legislature enacted the  
          arguably redundant Gender Tax Repeal Act (Civil Code Section  
          51.6.) which provided that "no business establishment of any  
          kind whatsoever may discriminate, with respect to the price  
          charged for services of similar or like kind, against a person  
          because of a person's gender."  The legislative history suggests  
          that the Gender Tax Repeal Act was primarily targeted at  
          services like dry cleaners that typically charged more to clean  
          women's clothes even when the clothes were substantially similar  
          men's clothes in terms of size and fabric.  The bill also  
          targeted barbers and similar haircutting establishments that  
          typically charged more to cut a woman's hair than men's hair.   
          To the extent that these services were truly of similar or like  
          kind, gender-based pricing was most likely already prohibited by  
          the Unruh Act as interpreted by Koire.  Presumably, the intent  
          of the 1995 legislation was to codify that holding.  However,  
          because the Gender Tax Repeal Act only applied to "services," it  
          unintentionally created a presumption that price discrimination  
          was not prohibited when it came to "goods" - even though prior  
          to the Gender Tax Repeal Act, the Unruh Act, under the reasoning  
          in Koire, most certainly prohibited price discrimination in both  
          services and goods.   


          Identifying gender-specific products and goods of "substantially  
          similar or like kind:"  As noted below, opponents of this bill,  
          especially those representing retailers, contend that it will be  
          very difficult for them to comply with this law for two critical  
          reasons.  First, in considering the legitimacy of price  
          differences, retailers will need to determine whether the goods  
          are gender-neutral or gender-specific.  Second, if the goods are  








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  9





          gender-specific, but priced differently, then the retailer will  
          need to determine if the goods are "of a substantially similar  
          or like kind."  If the two products are substantially similar,  
          then the price of the two products will need to be identical  
          unless some "gender-neutral" pricing factor applies.  Opponents  
          contend that, in practice, making these determinations will be  
          extremely difficult.  While some goods may be clearly designed  
          or expressly labeled for one gender or the other, other goods  
          may be more ambiguous.  Similarly, determining whether goods are  
          "substantially similar" may be easy where the only apparent  
          difference between two products is the color or the packaging;  
          however, many more products that offer different versions for  
          men and women will have varying degrees of difference that  
          reflects the supposedly different needs or desires of men and  
          women.  Calculating what degree of difference will justify a  
          price difference may be quite difficult and somewhat arbitrary.   
          Opponents believe that these determinations will ultimately be  
          resolved in costly litigation or settlements with persons who  
          believe that the retailer has charged a different price solely  
          because the presumed gender of the intended consumer of the  
          product. 


          Beyond Pink and Blue Razors:  One of the most cited example of  
          the problem that this bill seeks to address is that of the  
          "pink" disposable razor "for women" that  reportedly cost more  
          than the virtually identical "blue" disposable razor "for men."   
          In an admittedly unscientific approach, the Committee consulted  
          prices for Gillette disposable razors on Amazon.com.  While  
          there was indeed a difference, in this particular instance the  
          razors "for men" cost more than the ones for women.  For  
          example, the pink-packaged "Gillette Daisy Comfort Hold Pivot  
          Disposable Women's Razor" sells for $8.26 for a package of ten  
          (or $.075 each).  On the other hand, the blue-packaged "Gillette  
          CustomPlus Pivot Disposable Razor for Men" cost $10.29 for a  
          package of ten (or $1.03 each).   Both items were "pivot  
          disposable" razors with twin blades.  Perhaps the "CustomPlus"  
          feature in the men's razor - whatever that entails - accounts  
          for the greater price.  However, this seems unlikely, because  








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  10





          the basic blue "Regular" Gillette costs even more at $7.59 for a  
          package of five (or $1.52 each).  (See  
           https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_12?url=search-alias%3Da 
          ps&field-keywords=gillette+disposable+razors&sprefix=gillette+dis 
          %2Caps%2C216  , visited on June 16, 2016.)


          Of course, the single example above in no way negates the  
          evidence that women's products are, on average, priced higher  
          than similar products for men.  However, the example above is  
          instructive in other ways, especially insofar as it offers some  
          support to the opposition's claims that retailers will not know  
          with certainty whether differences in the products, however  
          small or large, justify a price difference.  Despite the seeming  
          similarity of the products - they are all about the same size,  
          made of plastic, and have twin blades and moist "glide strips" -  
          the marketing suggests that each is different in some subtle way  
          that is apparently significant to the intended consumer.  For  
          example, the product description for the pink-packaged "Gillette  
          Daisy" razor claims that the blades are thinner in order "to  
          glide effortlessly across your skin" and that the "soft comfort  
          hold handle is designed for comfort and control."  Whether these  
          claims are truthful or not might be relevant if bringing a false  
          advertising claim, but these product claims illustrate the  
          problems that a business establishment may face in trying to  
          determine whether the differences in design and purported  
          quality are substantial enough to justify a higher price. 


          The example above is also instructive in another way.  As noted,  
          this bill defines "goods of substantially similar or like kind"  
          to mean one sharing the same brand, functional components, and  
          90% of the same material or ingredients.  The razors in the  
          example were all the same brand (Gillette), had the same  
          functional components (a handle and blade for shaving), and  
          appear to be made of out of the same materials (over 90%  
          plastic).  But having all of these things in common does not  
          mean that the products are of the same quality or, more  
          important, of the same value to the consumer.  Prices not only  








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  11





          reflect materials and ingredients, but also research and  
          development costs, such as testing whether a thinner blade  
          glides more smoothly over the skin or whether the shape of a  
          handle offers more control.  Developing and manufacturing  
          thinner blades or curved handles may entail different costs than  
          regular-sized blades and straighter handles.  To be sure, these  
          differences may be small, but so too are the differences in  
          price.  Moreover, however small the differences in design or  
          quality, the consumer choosing one over the other apparently  
          believes that such differences matter.  Price is not simply  
          determined by labor, materials, or even research and design; it  
          is also determined by demand, which in turn is affected by how  
          much the consumer values a particular characteristic - be it a  
          color, a soft handle, or how a razor glides over the skin. 


          Finally, the example above is instructive in yet another way.   
          Although Amazon.com lists the pink-packaged "Daisy" razors as a  
          "woman's razor" in the product description on its website, the  
          packaging does not appear to use the words "for women" or  
          "women's razor."  Perhaps Amazon has inferred this from the  
          color or the name "Daisy."  Because this bill is not limited to  
          goods that are clearly labeled as being for one gender or the  
          other, the retailer setting a price must consider whether the  
          product is intended for a man or a woman, despite the absence of  
          a label.  While there may be near universal consensus that some  
          products are designed for some unique aspect of male or female  
          anatomy or biology, for most products a retailer will need to  
          make a determination based on the same gender stereotypes that  
          gave rise to the discrimination in the first place.  Should a  
          retailer assume that a product is designed for a woman simply  
          because it is pink?  Is a lavender scented soap inherently  
          female?  Are monster-sized tires for a pick-up truck necessarily  
          meant for a man?  Is a child's tee shirt with flowers on it a  
          girl's tee shirt, while a tee shirt with a football on it a  
          boy's tee shirt?  Like the reader of Goldilocks and the Three  
          Bears, the retailer may need to assume that the hard bed is for  
          Papa Bear, the soft bed is for Mama Bear, and the medium bed for  
          a Baby Bear of an undetermined gender.  Ironically, this bill  








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  12





          may require the retailer to engage in the very kinds of cultural  
          stereotyping that the bill is attempting to combat.   


          In conclusion, this bill raises intriguing policy questions.  On  
          the one hand, the weight of evidence suggests that even though  
          women, on average, make less income than men, they also, on  
          average, pay more for functionally similar products.  It is also  
          unclear exactly why this is so, other than to say that due to  
          some complex set of cultural and ideological factors women, in  
          the aggregate, place greater value on certain products and are  
          willing to pay more for them.  Retailers and marketers rely  
          upon, and manipulate, those cultural and ideological factors to  
          charge what the market will bear.  The cultural and ideological  
          factors may well be a product of patriarchy, but pricing  
          discrimination is a product of free market capitalism.  What if  
          anything can be done about this state of affairs?  According to  
          the proponents, the Legislature should prohibit retailers and  
          manufacturers from exploiting gender stereotypes to maximize  
          their profits.  Supporters appear to hope that, in the long run  
          laws like this one will not only prohibit gender discrimination  
          in pricing but will cause manufacturers and retailers to abandon  
          a gendered approach to marketing altogether.  Opponents, on the  
          other hand, contend that this bill only serves to reinforce  
          gendered stereotypes.  This bill will require retailers to make  
          decisions based on the very gender stereotypes that our society  
          is trying to move away from.  Indeed, one might argue that this  
          bill is premised on the sexist belief that women are not as  
          strong as men when it comes to resisting marketing pressures and  
          have no choice but to choose pink razors over blue razors, even  
          if the pink razors are more expensive.  Opponents, on the other  
          hand, contend that men and women are equally capable of making  
          informed choices.  Parents, for example, can opt for the $25  
          blue scooter over the $50 pink scooter.  The parents can teach  
          their daughter an important lesson about gender stereotyping and  
          save $25 to boot. 


          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:  The Consumer Federation of California  








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  13





          (CFC), the sponsor, argues that "[f]or products that do not  
          differ in the labor, materials and related costs of production,  
          it is unfair to charge more based on the gender of the consumer  
          to whom it is marketed."  CFC cites a study conducted by the New  
          York City Department of Consumer Affairs showing that "women's  
          products cost seven percent more, on average, than similar or  
          identical products for men.  Certain products, such as personal  
          care products, were priced up to 13 percent higher compared to  
          identical products for men."  According to CFC, this report  
          identified 800 products, including razors, toys, clothing, and  
          care products that are marketed to women that cost more than the  
          identical products for men."  CFC also notes this discrepancy is  
          especially unfair when one considers that "women still earn 21%  
          less than men working in similar full-time jobs.  The injustice  
          of lower wages is further compounded when we examine how  
          everyday consumer products are commonly priced nearly 13% more  
          when marketed to women".  CFC contends that gender-based pricing  
          is "blatant gender discrimination.  Women should not have to pay  
          more for a razor simply because it is pink." 


          Santa Barbara Women's Political Committee (SBWCP) supports this  
          bill, in part, because even though the Gender Tax Repeal Act  
          "protected consumers against price discrimination in services,  
          those protections did not extend to consumer products."  Noting  
          the studies which show that, on average, women's products cost  
          more than similar products for me, SBWPC argues that it is "well  
          past time to update the law so that women are not charged a  
          premium for these products based on their gender."   


          The bill is supported by several other women's organizations,  
          labor unions, consumer protection, and civil rights groups for  
          substantially the same reasons as those articulated above. 


          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:  The California Chamber of Commerce  
          (Chamber) has placed SB 899 on its "job killer" list, contending  
          that ambiguous language in the bill will expose businesses to  








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  14





          costly litigation.  First, the Chamber argues that most goods  
          cannot be readily identified as "male" or "female" products.   
          With the exception of undergarments or goods clearly labeled  
          "for men" or "for women," retailers will often be required to  
          engage in gender stereotyping in order to identify a product as  
          inherently associated with one gender or the other.  The Chamber  
          asks, for example: "Is a pink shirt a female shirt just because  
          of the color?  Comparatively, is a blue or teal razor a male  
          razor just because of its color?"  The Chamber notes that for  
          many products, especially children's toys, manufacturers and  
          retailers are moving away from targeting toys specifically to  
          boys or girls, in part because psychologists that gendered  
          stereotypes eventually extend "from toys and clothes to future  
          roles, occupations, and characteristics."  The Chamber contends  
          that this measure will "force retailers and grocers back into  
          gender stereotyping in order to make sure that they do not  
          charge a consumer a higher price for a female product versus a  
          male product of a similar kind."  In addition, the Chamber  
          contends that once the retailer determines whether two different  
          products are gender-specific, it would then need to determine  
          whether the two products are "substantially similar" or of "like  
          kind."  This will be difficult in practice, the Chamber claims,  
          and the retailer will be more likely to protect themselves by  
          raising the price of the lower-priced good as opposed to  
          lowering the price of the higher-priced good. 


          Finally, the Chamber contends that SB 899 will expose retailers  
          "to significant litigation similar to the ADA litigation  
          plaguing California."  The Chamber claims that despite recent  
          amendments that permit price differences based on  
          "gender-neutral" factors, as a practical matter whether a  
          pricing decision was gender-based or gender-neutral will  
          ultimately be resolved by litigation.  The Chamber emphasizes  
          that Civil Code Section 52 (which establishes the remedy for a  
          violation) provides for a minimum award of $4,000 for each  
          violation, as well as attorney's fees; this will provide a  
          powerful incentive for attorneys to bring suits, regardless of  
          the measure of damages. 








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  15







          A coalition of retail, business, and marketing associations  
          oppose this bill for substantially similar reasons as those put  
          forth by the Chamber.  These opponents, however, stress  
          additionally that price determinations "are fluid and affected  
          by numerous factors," not just the labor or materials necessary  
          to make the product.  Prices are also determined by many other  
          factors, such as "competitor pricing, brand, country of origin,  
          cost of production, availability of supply, promotional  
          campaigns, cost of design, cost of marketing, cost of packaging,  
          merchandising, method of manufacture, and size, among others."   
          Like the Chamber, the coalition is also concerned about the  
          incentives for litigation, especially given that the bill would  
          seem to prohibit any price differences, whether it is a few  
          pennies or a few dollars.  But whatever the price difference,  
          "each successful lawsuit can yield an award of up to $4,000 per  
          instance . . . plus attorney's fees."  Finally, the coalition  
          notes that this "bill offers no guidance as to what goods are  
          considered gender-specific and therefore subject to the law."   
          Retailers will have to make these determinations on their own.   
          The coalition believes that this "requirement to gender-identify  
          all products seems like a step backward, especially as our  
          society works to eliminate gender bias." 


          




















                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  16




























          Proposed Author Amendments:  In response to concerns raised in  
          the last week's hearing on this bill, the author will take  
          amendments in this Committee that amend the bill in print as  
          follows:


          51.6. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the  
          Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995.


          (b) (1) No business establishment of any kind whatsoever may  
          discriminate, with respect to the price charged for services of  
          similar or like kind, against a person because of the person's  
          gender.










                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  17





          (2) No business establishment of any kind whatsoever may  
          discriminate, with respect to the price charged for goods of a  
          substantially similar or like kind,  against a person  because of  
          the  gender of the targeted user of the good.   person's gender    A  
          good is targeted to a user of a particular gender if the good is  
          designed or intended to be used by, or appeal to, a consumer of  
          the good based on his or her gender as evidenced by either of  
          the following:


             (A)   The content of any marketing materials, advertising  
                materials, or packaging would suggest to a reasonable  
                person that the product is targeted to a specific gender. 



             (B)   The business establishment placed the product in a  
                location that was labeled for a specific gender. 
           (c) Nothing in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) prohibits price  
          differences based specifically upon the amount of time,  
          difficulty, or cost of providing the services.


          (d) (1) Nothing in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) prohibits  
          price differences based  on gender-neutral factors, including,  
          but not limited to, labor, materials, tariffs, or inventory  
          management.   specifically on the labor, materials, tariffs, or  
          other gender-neutral reasons for having increased cost for  
          providing the goods.


           (2) Nothing in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) prohibits a  
          retail establishment from passing through a price to the  
          consumer that is set by a manufacturer, distributor, or other  
          entity that the retailer cannot control.


          (e) (1) For purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), goods  
           may be   are  of a substantially similar or like kind if the goods  








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  18





           do   meet  all of the following  conditions  :


          (A) Share the same brand  , kind, and quality.


           (B) Share the same functional components.


          (C) Share 90 percent of the same materials or ingredients.


          (2) "Goods" shall not include any "food," as defined by Section  
          12502 of the Food and Agricultural Code or goods sold by a "new  
          motor vehicle dealer," as defined by Section 426 of the Vehicle  
          Code.


          (f) Except as provided in subdivision (h), the remedies for a  
          violation of this section are the remedies provided in  
          subdivision (a) of Section 52. However, an action under this  
          section is independent of any other remedy or procedure that may  
          be available to an aggrieved party.

          (g) (1) This act does not alter or affect the provisions of the  
          Health and Safety Code, the Insurance Code, or other laws that  
          govern health care service plan or insurer underwriting or  
          rating practices.

          (2) The exclusions from the term "goods" in paragraph (2) of  
          subdivision (e) shall not bar or otherwise impact a claim  
          brought pursuant to Section 51.

          (h) (1) The following business establishments shall clearly and  
          conspicuously disclose to the customer in writing the pricing  
          for each standard service provided:

          (A) Tailors or businesses providing aftermarket clothing  
          alterations.








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  19






          (B) Barbers or hair salons.

          (C) Dry cleaners and laundries providing services to  
          individuals.

          (2) The price list shall be posted in an area conspicuous to  
          customers. Posted price lists shall be in no less than 14-point  
          boldface type and clearly and completely display pricing for  
          every standard service offered by the business under paragraph  
          (1).

          (3) The business establishment shall provide the customer with a  
          complete written price list upon request.

          (4) The business establishment shall display in a conspicuous  
          place at least one clearly visible sign, printed in no less than  
          24-point boldface type, which reads: "CALIFORNIA LAW PROHIBITS  
          ANY BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT FROM DISCRIMINATING, WITH RESPECT TO  
          THE PRICE CHARGED FOR SERVICES OF SIMILAR OR LIKE KIND, AGAINST  
          A PERSON BECAUSE OF THE PERSON'S GENDER. A COMPLETE PRICE LIST  
          IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST."

          (5) A business establishment that fails to correct a violation  
          of this subdivision within 30 days of receiving written notice  
          of the violation is liable for a civil penalty of one thousand  
          dollars ($1,000).


          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:




          Support


          Consumer Federation of California (sponsor)









                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  20






          ACLU


          AFSCME 


          California Alliance for retired Americans 


          California Immigrant Policy Center 


          California National Organization of Women 


          California Rural Legal Assistance


          CALPIRG


          City of Santa Monica


          Equal Rights Advocates


          Professor Rebecca Hains, Center for Childhood and Youth Studies,  
          Salem State University


          Heroica Films 


          Let Toys Be Toys 


          Mujeres Unidas y Activas 








                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  21







          Older Women's League, Sacramento Capitol 


          Planned Parenthood of California 


          Santa Barbara Women's Political Committee 


          U.S. Senator Jackie Speier


          Professor Elizabeth V. Sweet, Department of Sociology, UC Davis 


          UDW Homecare Providers Unions


          United Food & Commercial Workers Union: Western States Council 


          Women's Foundation of California 




          Opposition


          California Chamber of Commerce


          California Grocers Association 


          California Retailers Association 









                                                                     SB 899


                                                                    Page  22






          Civil Justice Association of California


          Consumer Specialty Products Association 


          Direct Marketing Association 


          Grocery Manufacturers of America 


          National Federation of Independent Businesses


          TechNet


          Toy Industry Association 




          Analysis Prepared by:Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916)  
          319-2334