BILL ANALYSIS
AB 793
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 793 (Jones and Brownley)
As Amended April 29, 2009
2/3 vote
JUDICIARY 7-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Brownley, Evans, | | |
| |Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, | | |
| |Monning | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Tran, Knight, Nielsen | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |49-28|(May 18, 2009) |SENATE: |24-16|(September 4, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Clarifies the meaning and effect of state employment
compensation laws with respect to statutes of limitation.
1)Provides that, like federal law, for the purpose of filing a
claim or complaint for any unlawful employment practice with
respect to compensation, including, but not limited to,
discrimination claims and Labor Code violations, a cause of
action accrues when any of the following occurs: a) A
compensation decision or other practice is adopted; b) An
individual becomes subject to a compensation decision or other
practice; and, c) An individual is affected by the application
of a compensation decision or other practice, including each
time when wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid,
resulting in whole or in part from the compensation decision
or other practice.
2)Clarifies that, like federal law, when an administrative
complaint is filed, liability may accrue and an aggrieved
AB 793
Page 2
person may obtain relief where the unlawful employment
practices that have occurred during the applicable
administrative complaint filing period are similar or related
to unlawful employment practices with regard to compensation
that occurred outside the time for filing an administrative
complaint.
3)Declares that, like federal law, the bill does not impose a
substantive change in the acts or omissions that constitute an
unlawful employment practice with respect to compensation.
4)Declares that, like federal law, nothing in this Act is
intended to change current law treatment of when pension
distributions are considered paid, and that with regard to any
complaint under any law nothing in this Act is intended to
preclude or limit an aggrieved person's right to introduce
evidence of an unlawful employment practice that has occurred
outside the time for filing a charge of discrimination
5)States the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section
to construe and clarify the meaning and effect of existing law
and to reject the interpretation given to federal law by the
United States Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. (2007) 550
U.S. 618, and accordingly provides that this section shall apply
to claims pending on or after the effective date of this
section but is not intended to revive claims that have lapsed
as of the effective date of this section.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : When an act of discrimination - such as the issuance
of a smaller pay check to a woman because of her gender - is
part of a repeated pattern, when does the legal time period for
filing a complaint begin to run: from the date of the first
act, however clandestine, or each time the discrimination is
repeated, for example with each new discriminatory paycheck?
In support of this bill the author states, "AB 793 clarifies
that the time period for alleging an unlawful employment
practice with respect to compensation runs from the date of each
AB 793
Page 3
wage payment. This legislation ensures that victims of illegal
pay discrimination continue to have a fair opportunity to seek
redress in the courts for violations of state law. The decision
in Ledbetter ignores workplace realities. Most employees who
are victims of discrimination don't learn they are being
discriminated against until years into their employment. Salary
information is often confidential. The Ledbetter decision, if
it were applied to state law or employees feared it would be
applied to state law, could force employees to file needless
complaints simply to protect their rights before they have
enough information to determine whether they have been
discriminated against or not. Wage discrimination causes real
and ongoing harm and the remedies need to continue to be ongoing
as well."
Similarly, the federal "Ledbetter" Act recently signed by
President Obama declares: "The Supreme Court in Ledbetter v.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), significantly
impairs statutory protections against discrimination in
compensation that Congress established and that have been
bedrock principles of American law for decades. The Ledbetter
decision undermines those statutory protections by unduly
restricting the time period in which victims of discrimination
can challenge and recover for discriminatory compensation
decisions or other practices, contrary to the intent of
Congress." The Act further declares, "The limitation imposed by
the Court on the filing of discriminatory compensation claims
ignores the reality of wage discrimination and is at odds with
the robust application of the civil rights laws that Congress
intended."
Among other supporters, the California Commission on the Status
of Women writes, "This measure ensures that victims of pay
discrimination continue to have a fair opportunity to seek
redress in the courts for violation of state law."
A coalition of business and employer advocates argues as follows
that the bill "would revise the statute of limitations law for
any workplace claim or lawsuit relating to compensation so that
the statute of limitations is renewed each time an employee's
compensation is "affected," including each time it is paid. AB
AB 793
Page 4
793 is not limited to any particular statute, and thus would
apply to any California law impacting employers, including but
not limited to the Labor Code and the Fair Employment and
Housing Act."
Opponents do not say why the state should follow a different
rule than comparable federal law, or why state rules should vary
depending on the statute alleged to be violated.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
"The bill seeks to address the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, which dealt
with an interpretation of federal law. However, Congress has
already abrogated this decision by enacting the Lilly Ledbetter
Fair Pay Act earlier this year. Therefore, this bill is
unnecessary as it addresses a decision that has been mooted by
subsequent legislation that has no direct application in
California. Moreover, as drafted, this measure is far more
expansive than the federal law and could pose unreasonable and
unlimited liability for California employers. For these
reasons, I am unable to sign this bill."
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0003304