BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2317|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2317
Author: Oropeza (D)
Amended: 6/29/04 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUST. RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-3, 6/9/04
AYES: Alarcon, Dunn, Figueroa, Kuehl, Romero
NOES: Oller, Margett, McClintock
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-1, 6/22/04
AYES: Escutia, Cedillo, Ducheny, Kuehl, Sher
NOES: Ackerman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Morrow
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-27, 4/29/04 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Gender pay equity
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill increases the damages paid for
violations of state law prohibiting gender-based pay
discrimination.
ANALYSIS : Existing state law, the California Equal Pay
law (Section 1197.5 of the Labor Code), prohibits employers
from paying an employee a wage less than that paid to
employees of the opposite sex, in the same establishment,
for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and
CONTINUED
AB 2317
Page
2
responsibility, and performed under similar working
conditions. Employers in violation of the law are subject
to civil action for the recovery of the balance of the
underpaid lost wages with interest and an equal amount in
liquidated damages that may be paid to the aggrieved
employee. The federal Equal Pay Act is similar to the
state law but also subjects repeat or willful violators to
a civil penalty not to exceed $1000 for each violation and
allows for recovery of compensatory damages. Recovery of
compensatory damages is also allowed for gender-based wage
discrimination complaints filed with the State Department
of Fair Employment and Housing.
This bill increases the damages an aggrieved employee may
obtain if successful in bringing a civil action against an
employer who has violated state law prohibiting
gender-based wage discrimination to include the balance of
the underpaid lost wages with interest, an equal amount as
liquidated damages, and an amount equal to double the
balance of the wages as a civil penalty. The bill also
subjects repeat or willful violators to a civil penalty
equal to the balance of the wages, including interest, an
equal amount as liquidated damages, and an amount equal to
four times the balance of the wages.
Comments
According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2002,
American women working full-time, year-round earned on
average only 76.6 cents for every dollar earned by
full-time working American men. A General Accounting
Office report on women's earnings shows that there exists
an inexplicable wage gap of approximately 20 percent, even
after taking into account work experience, education,
occupation, industry of current employment, and other
demographic and job characteristics. And, interestingly
enough, the Institute for Women's Policy Research found
that recent narrowing of the wage gap between men and women
was due in large part to men's real wages falling, rather
than women's wages rising.
The author's office also points out that minority women
fare significantly worse, and that the earnings gap, which
cuts across a wide spectrum of jobs, is equivalent to an
AB 2317
Page
3
average loss of $4,000 in a family's annual income, an
amount that would cut the poverty rate in half.
California has prohibited gender-based pay discrimination
since 1949. While Section 1197.5 of the Labor Code started
out to redress the segregation of women into historically
undervalued occupations, it evolved, over the last four
decades, such that today it is virtually identical to the
federal Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C. Secs. 206(d)).
NOTE: For a detailed discussion of employer liability and
the purpose of liquidated damages, please refer to the
Senate Judiciary Committee analysis.
Related legislation . AJR 66 (Lieber), Chapter 38, Statutes
of 2004, proclaims April 20, 2004 as Equal Pay Day, and
urges the Congress of the United States to protect the
fundamental right of all American women to receive equal
pay for equal work and to continue to provide more
effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the
payment of wages on the basis of sex.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/12/04)
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
California Commission of the Status of Women
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit
Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California National Organization for Women
California State Employees Association
California School Employees Association
California Teamster Public Affairs Council
Engineers and Scientists of California, Local 20
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union
AB 2317
Page
4
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21
Region 8 States Council of the United Food and Commercial
Workers
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/12/04)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Employment Law Council
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
State Department of Finance
National Federation of Independent Business
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters of this bill argue that
despite the prohibition of gender-based payment
discrimination in state law since 1949 and the federal
Equal Pay Act of 1963, wage inequities between men and
women still exist. For example, the United States General
Accounting Office recently found a gender-based wage gap of
approximately 20 percent, even after taking into account
work experience, education, occupation, industry of current
employment and other demographic and job characteristics.
Yet, California ranks 39th among all states in progress in
closing the hourly wage gap. At the current rate of
change, California working women will not have equal pay
for another 40 years. Proponents believe the substantial
increase in liquidated damages for gender based wage
discrimination in this bill will help eliminate wage
inequality by penalizing employers engaged in these
practices and serve as an incentive for employees to pursue
legal remedies.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Employment Law
Council (CLEC) and others believe this bill is excessive.
According to CLEC, the change from "may" to "shall"
eliminates discretion in assessing damages and makes them
automatic. The California Chamber of Commerce and others
are concerned that this bill puts employers at a
disadvantage because the new mandatory damages encourages
litigation against businesses.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Berg, Bermudez, Calderon, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn,
Corbett, Diaz, Dutra, Dymally, Firebaugh, Frommer,
AB 2317
Page
5
Goldberg, Hancock, Jerome Horton, Jackson, Kehoe, Koretz,
Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal,
Matthews, Montanez, Mullin, Nakano, Nation, Negrete
McLeod, Oropeza, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Salinas, Simitian,
Steinberg, Wesson, Wolk, Yee, Nunez
NOES: Aghazarian, Bates, Benoit, Bogh, Campbell, Cogdill,
Cox, Daucher, Dutton, Garcia, Harman, Shirley Horton,
Houston, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Maze, McCarthy,
Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Parra, Richman, Runner, Samuelian,
Spitzer, Strickland, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Canciamilla, Correa, Haynes, Leslie,
Maddox, Maldonado, Pacheco, Pavley, Plescia, Vargas,
Wiggins
NC:mel 7/14/04 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****