BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 76
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 2, 2003

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                              Darrell Steinberg, Chair

                    AB 76 (Corbett) - As Amended:  March 11, 2003 

          Policy Committee:                              Labor and  
          Employment   Vote:                            6-2
                        Judiciary                              11-3

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              

           SUMMARY  

          This bill clarifies that it is an unlawful practice under the  
          Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for an employer or other  
          covered entity to fail to take immediate and appropriate  
          corrective action to prevent harassment of an employee by any  
          person, once the employer knows or should have known of the  
          harassment.  This bill effectively invalidates a recent court of  
          appeal decision, which held that employers are not required  
          under FEHA to take reasonable steps to protect their employees  
          from harassment perpetrated by the employer's customers or  
          clients. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Minor, absorbable costs to the Department of Fair Employment and  
          Housing.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Background  .  In October 2002, the Second District Court of  
            Appeal concluded in the case of  Salazar v. Diversified  
            Paratransit, Inc  . (103 Cal.App.4th 131) that the affirmative  
            duty established by FEHA requiring employers to prevent  
            workplace harassment is limited to harassment committed by the  
            employer's employees, supervisors and agents. The employer's  
            duty to prevent harassment did not extend to harassment by the  
            employer's customers or clients, regardless of how egregious  
            the harassment or the employer's actual knowledge of it.  The  
            California Supreme Court recently agreed to review the Court  
            of Appeal's ruling in  Salazar  .








                                                                  AB 76
                                                                  Page  2


           2)Purpose  .  The author and supporters argue that the  Salazar  
             decision was largely based on a mistaken interpretation of  
            legislative intent. Supporters point to the uncodified  
            preamble to the FEHA, which states the Legislature's intent  
            that "employers be required to establish affirmative  
            programs?so that work sites will be maintained free from  
            prohibited harassment and discrimination  
            by?[employers']?agents, administrators, and supervisors as  
            well as by their non-supervisors and clientele." (Chapter 1754  
            of 1984).  
           
            Supporters also point out that this bill is consistent with  
            federal law, where a number of cases have determined that  
            employers may be held responsible for failing to protect their  
            employees from third party harassment under Title VII of the  
            federal Civil Rights Act. 


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Stephen Shea / APPR. / (916) 319-2081