BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2889
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2004
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
AB 2889 (Laird) - As Introduced: February 20, 2004
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:7-3
Labor 6-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill clarifies that employers are responsible for the acts
of non-employees with respect to all forms of harassment in the
workplace where the employer or its agents or supervisors knew
or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate
and appropriate corrective action.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor absorbable costs to the Department of Fair Employment and
Housing.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . Last year, AB 76 (Corbett)--Chapter 671/Statutes 2003
clarified that employers are required, consistent with federal
law, to take reasonable steps to protect their employees from
sexual harassment perpetrated by an employer's customers,
clients or other non-employees. As introduced, the measure
dealt with all forms of harassment, but prior to passage the
bill was narrowed to encompass only sexual harassment. The
author of AB 2889 argues that, "Because AB 76 was limited to
sexual harassment, it has created a "hierarchy" of harassment
protection favoring sexual harassment over harassment directed
at employees because of their race, religion, color, national
origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, age, or
sexual orientation. This clean-up bill seeks to appropriately
'equalize' worker protections against harassment ? being
perpetrated by a customer, client or other third party in the
workplace." The author and supporters view the compromises to
AB 76 as having inadvertently created a "loop hole" with
AB 2889
Page 2
respect to state law.
Supporters of the bill, the Attorney General as well as many
statewide labor and civil rights groups, argue that, by
closing the loop hole, this bill merely brings California law
in line with the broader protections provided under federal
law so that California workers are not afforded less
protection against third party harassment than they receive
under federal law.
2)Opposition . Opponents include several business organizations.
The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) opposes
this bill because "it will subject employers to liability for
all forms of third party harassment." It also opposes the bill
because "Assembly Bill 76 ... expanded California law beyond
federal law that covers only employers with 15 or more
employees." CJAC further argues that employers lack control,
legal or otherwise, over the behavior of non-employees such as
clients, customers, or others outside of their supervisory
scope.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081