BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1063 Page A Date of Hearing: June 22, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Roger Hernández, Chair SB 1063 (Hall) - As Amended April 20, 2016 SENATE VOTE: 26-13 SUBJECT: Conditions of employment: wage differential: race or ethnicity SUMMARY: Expands the prohibitions laid down in the California Equal Pay Act regarding gender, to include discrimination based on race or ethnicity. Specifically, this bill: 1)Prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of another race or ethnicity for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions. 2)Provides exceptions for when the employer demonstrates the wage differential is based upon one or more of the following factors, each factor relied upon is applied reasonably and the one or more factors relied upon account for the entire wage differential: a) A seniority system b) A merit system SB 1063 Page B c) A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production d) A bona fide factor other than race or ethnicity, such as education, training, or experience. This factor shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that the factor is not based on or derived from a race- or ethnicity-based differential in compensation, is job related with respect to the position in question, and is consistent with a business necessity. e) For purposes of these provisions, "business necessity" means an overriding legitimate business purpose such that the factor relied upon effectively fulfills the business purpose it is supposed to serve. This shall not apply if the employee demonstrates that an alternative business practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential. EXISTING LAW: 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, unless the employer demonstrates that specific, reasonably applied factors account for the entire wage differential. 2)Authorizes an employee paid lesser wages in violation of this prohibition to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and authorizes the employee, the division, or the Department of Industrial Relations to commence a civil action for the wages the employee was deprived of because of the violation, interest on those wages, SB 1063 Page C and liquidated damages. 3)Provides that an employer or other person who violates or causes a violation of that prohibition, or who reduces the wages of any employee in order to comply with that prohibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) indicates that the potential increase in workload resulting from the bill is unknown. However, as an order of magnitude, if one percent of the claims currently filed at the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) are instead filed with DIR's Labor Commissioner, DIR estimates that this bill could administrative costs of $601,000 in the first year and $570,000 in subsequent years (special fund). COMMENTS: The author believes that the Equal Pay Act, in its current form, fails to address the multifaceted consequences of biases that permeate every aspect of our society. While it is an improvement on the original Equal Pay Act, it still does not recognize that wage discrimination is not confined to women. Women of color, who are paid less than white women, should be able to make a claim under California's Equal Pay Act. Men of color, who are paid less than white men, should be able to make a claim under California's Equal Pay Act as well. Ideally, other protected classes, such as members of the LGBTQ or disabled community should be included in this remedy, but the addition of race and ethnicity begins the process of making pay equity in California more inclusive. Relation to SB 358 (Jackson) Chapter 546, Statutes of 2015 This bill adopts an identical approach to SB 358 in addressing SB 1063 Page D wage discrimination. It places the responsibility on the employer to prove or demonstrate that a wage differential between employees is not occurring as a result of a worker's race or ethnicity. Additionally, this bill uses the definitions specified in SB 358 regarding the nature of "business necessity" and "substantially similar work" to close perceived loopholes in the law which were used to justify discriminatory wage rate differentials. "Business necessity" is taken to mean an overriding legitimate business purpose which validates a wage variance, such as paying someone more because they possess a higher degree which is essential to their duties. Only under this definition does "business necessity" justify wage rate differences. Also, in SB 358 "substantially similar work" replaced "equal work" as a comparative term for wage rates. This removed the ability of employers to use different titles in order to justify paying unequal wage rates for people who were doing similar work. Overall, this bill broadens the specifications set down in SB 358 and applies them to racial and ethnic protections. SB 1063 Page E Data regarding Fair Pay differentials among minorities and women The National Women's Law Center issued a report<1> in 2013 focused on the issue of fair pay. The report argues that, "The lowest-paid workers in the labor market, those paid the federal minimum wage or less, are about two-thirds women. The chances a worker earning the federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13 an hour is a woman are roughly the same. Women of color are disproportionately represented among female minimum wage workers: African-American women were just under 13 percent and Hispanic women were just under 14 percent of all employed women in 2012, but more than 15 percent of women paid the minimum wage were African-American and more than 18 percent were Hispanic. Most women paid the minimum wage are not relying on a spouse's income." Arguments in Support --------------------------- <1> 50 Years & Counting: The Unfinished Business of Achieving Fair Pay. The National Women's Law Center: June 2013, Washington D.C. http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/final_nwlc_equal_pay _report.pdf SB 1063 Page F California National Organization for Women (NOW) is the sponsor of this measure and writes in support, "Despite being the most diverse and prosperous state in the nation, many California workers continue to suffer from a chronic racial and ethnic wage gap. A 2013 study revealed that Asian American women make 90 cents; African American women make 64 cents, and Hispanic or Latina women make just 54 cents for every dollar that a Caucasian man earns. The wage gap isn't only between men and women, as African American men earn just 75% of the average salary of a Caucasian male worker. Last year, SB 358 (Jackson) began to address wage inequality by prohibiting employers from paying employees a wage rate less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work. However, gaps in the law still persist. The 65 year old California Equal Pay Act fails to include one of the largest factors for wage inequity- race and ethnicity. As California continues to grow and diversify, large segments of our state's minority population are facing devastating economic inequality. No employee should be denied an equal wage for an equal day of work. This bill builds upon the important steps California has taken to address wage inequality and will set a national standard to ensure that every worker is paid a fair and equitable wage." SB 1063 Page G Arguments in Opposition A coalition of employers, including the California Chamber of Commerce, opposes this measure. They state, "SB 358 (Jackson), which expanded and strengthened Labor Code Section 1197.5 regarding equal pay for women, just went into effect at the beginning of this year. As both the author of SB 358 and numerous media outlets reported, SB 358 is the strongest equal pay law for women in the country. SB 358 made several significant amendments to existing law to accomplish this goal, including changing the term "equal" to "substantially similar," clarifying the definitions of "bona fide factor" and "business necessity," and the burdens of proof for the parties. These new standards introduced by SB 358 will likely be tested over the next several years in litigation. In fact, there is already a class action lawsuit pending alleging an equal pay violation with regard to female attorneys in the insurance industry. While we believe that no employee should be paid differently based upon any protected classification, we believe that the Legislature should allow time for employees, employers, and the courts to interpret and implement the new boundaries of the equal pay law before seeking to amend and expand it even further. Governor Brown echoed this same sentiment when he vetoed AB 1017 (Campos) last year? We need to give SB 358 sufficient time to determine whether the changes made to Labor Code Section 1197.5 work and how it impacts the litigation environment before we expand its provisions. Employees who believe they have been discriminated against with regard to pay may still seek relief under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which provides a list of remedies including: compensatory damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. FEHA covers all SB 1063 Page H protected classifications, including race and ethnicity." Previous Related Legislation AB 1676 (Campos) from 2016 would specify that prior salary cannot, by itself, justify any disparity in compensation. AB 1676 is pending hearing before the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee. AB 1017 (Campos) from 2015 would have prohibited an employer from seeking salary history information about an applicant for employment. AB 1017 was vetoed by the Governor. 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 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." SB 358 (Jackson) Chapter 546, Statutes of 2015 strengthens the California Equal Pay Act by, among other things, clarifying the relative burdens of proof and prohibiting retaliation against employees for disclosing or discussing their wages with co-workers. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: SB 1063 Page I Support American Association of University Women California (co-sponsor) American Civil Liberties Union of California American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Black Women Organized for Political Action Ca State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People California Black Women's Health Project California Catholic Conference, Inc. California Domestic Workers Coalition California Employment Lawyers Association California Federation of Teachers California Immigrant Policy Center SB 1063 Page J California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO California National Organization for Women (sponsor) California Reinvestment Coalition California Teachers Association Centro Laboral de Graton City of Compton Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles Courage Campaign Equal Rights Advocates Greater Sacramento Urban League Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center Los Angeles County Federation of Labor Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association SB 1063 Page K Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund National Coalition of 100 Black Women, Inc. - Sacramento Chapter Numerous Individuals Rainbow Services Sacramento National Organization for Women San Diego County Court Employees Association San Luis Obispo County Employees Association Service Employees International Union The Greenlining Institute The Organization of SMUD Employees The Women's Foundation of California United Domestic Workers of America/AFSCME Local 3930 SB 1063 Page L Opposition Agricultural Council of California California Bankers Association California Chamber of Commerce California League of Food Processors California Manufacturers & Technology Association California Pool and Spa Association California Restaurant Association California Retailers Association California State Association of Counties California Travel Association Civil Justice Association of California League of California Cities SB 1063 Page M National Federation of Independent Business Western Electrical Contractors Association, Inc Western Growers Association Analysis Prepared by:Taylor Jackson / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091