BILL ANALYSIS AB 3672 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 3672 (Martinez) As Introduced: February 25, 1994 ASSEMBLY ACTIONS: COMMITTEE L. & E. VOTE 6-4 COMMITTEE W. & M. VOTE 14-9 Ayes: T. Friedman, Karnette, Ayes: Vasconcellos, Alpert, V. Brown Archie-Hudson, Escutia, Klehs, Burton, Campbell, Costa, Solis Epple, Escutia, Baca Hannigan, Lee, Murray, O'Connell, Bronshvag Nays: Alby, Goldsmith, Hoge, Takasugi Nays: Horcher, Aguiar, Allen, Andal, Johnson, Pringle, Quackenbush, Seastrand, Woodruff DIGEST Under existing law: 1) The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), makes it unlawful to discriminate against an employee because of the employee's race, religion, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex or age. 2) These provisions are enforced by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC). This bill: 1) Amends FEHA to prohibit employers from refusing to permit an employee to wear pants on account of the sex of the employee. 2) Provides employers who require employees to wear a uniform that meets accepted safety standards for the particular occupation, or require employees to wear a costume while portraying a specific character or role are exempt from the prohibition contained in the bill. 3) Allows the FEHC to exempt an employer for good cause and directs the commission to adopt regulations and standards for granting exemptions. FISCAL EFFECT No significant state impact. COMMENTS 1) According to the author's office, current law allows employers to set š arbitrary dress codes which either formally or informally prohibit women from wearing pants in the workplace. They argue that it is sexist, unfair and expensive to require that women wear only skirts and dresses in the workplace. - continued - AB 3672 Page 1 AB 3672 2) Department of Fair Employment and Housing regulations governing š unlawful sex discrimination state that it is "lawful for an employer or other covered entity to impose upon an applicant or employee physical appearance, grooming or dress standards. However, if such a standard discriminates on the basis of sex and if it also significantly burdens the individual in his or her employment, it is unlawful." Since 1975, the Commission has rendered two seemingly contradictory decisions in response to complaints that employer dress codes constitute sex discrimination. The first case, Northern California Grocers, was initiated by an employee who was discharged because she came to work in a pantsuit in violation of company rules. Prior to her discharge, the employee had taken sick leave due to a cold and, upon her return, argued that she wore pants due to the fact that her desk was in a drafty area and she had not fully recovered from her cold. The Commission ruled that the employee's discharge was an unlawful employment practice in that Northern California Grocers Association's "dresses only" policy constituted differential treatment because of sex. The decision did not address the issue of whether the dress code was burdensome to the employee due to her recent illness. Five years later in 1980, the Commission heard a complaint against Lawton School for Medical and Dental Assistants. At the time the complaining employee was hired as an instructor of dental assistants, she was informed of the school's dress code policy requiring all employees and students to wear dresses and prohibiting the wearing of pantsuits. She was later discharged for wearing pantsuits on a number of occasions. During her employment at the school, all of the school's employees and students were women. The Commission ruled against the employee stating that the school's dress code did not pose a significant burden on the instructor's terms and conditions of employment and that she had failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination (presumably because all of the school's employees and students were female and bound by the same standards of dress). In the Lawton ruling, the Commission referred back to the Northern California Grocers Association case and the employees assertion that she needed to wear pants for health reasons. The ruling then contrasted the employee's situation in Northern California Grocers with that of the Lawton employee, stating that, unlike the Grocers' policy, the Lawton policy did not impose any burden on the employee beyond limiting her freedom to exercise her personal preference as to dress on the job. 3) The California Manufacturers Association argues that this bill would š preclude an employer from setting any dress standards: "An example is an employer who requires the wearing of a business suit and tie during business hours and a similar requirement for women in certain levels." FN 008588 - continued - AB 3672 Page 2