BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1562|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1562
Author: Assembly Labor and Employment Committee
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUST. RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 4-2, 7/8/09
AYES: DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Leno, Yee
NOES: Wyland, Hollingsworth
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-30, 5/18/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Employment: garnishment of wages
SOURCE : California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
DIGEST : This bill prohibits an employer from discharging
an employee because their wages have been subjected to
garnishment for the payment of five or fewer judgments at
any one time.
ANALYSIS : Existing law prohibits an employer from
terminating an employee because garnishment (a
lawfully-ordered securing/holding) of an employee's wages
has been threatened, or where it has been ordered for the
payment of one judgment.
This bill prohibits the termination of an employee when an
employee's wages have been subjected to garnishment for the
CONTINUED
AB 1562
Page
2
payment of five or fewer judgments at any one time.
Comments
The bill's sponsor, California Rural Legal Assistance
Foundation (CRLA) believes a technical correction is needed
in the law. A California Law Revision Commission
commentary on the referenced language (at the time of
passage in 1971) stated, "The statute does not reflect any
policy that discharge of an employee is justified merely
because his wages have been garnished for two or more
judgments." However, CRLA notes that when their attorneys
were reviewing the case of an individual who was worried
about a potential termination because he had recently been
subject to a second garnishment the attorneys were unable
to give him firm assurances that he was protected from
discharge. CRLA and the Assembly Labor Committee believe
that in these uncertain economic times this matter needs to
be clarified in law.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/17/09)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (source)
California Labor Federation
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents argue that California
families are facing economic insecurity. They are losing
their homes at record rates, facing greater unemployment,
and being forced into bankruptcy. It is likely, supporters
say, that workers will be increasingly subjected to wage
garnishment for multiple judgments as a result of predatory
mortgage lending, stagnant wages, and skyrocketing
inflation. Workers should not be fired simply because they
cannot afford to pay their bills. This bill clarifies an
important protection for low-wage workers and prevents
further economic hardship. This bill seeks to find a
reasonable compromise following the veto of AB 3062
(Assembly Labor Committee), 2007-08 Session, which said
that an employee should not be terminated for any number of
wage garnishments. Supporters also note that federal law
AB 1562
Page
3
expressly declares that no person is exempt from complying
with any state's laws prohibiting the discharge of
employees because his/her earnings have been subjected to
garnishment for more than one indebtedness.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Evans, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A. Perez, V.
Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Skinner,
Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada,
Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson,
Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman,
Harkey, Huber, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran,
Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Eng, Price, Saldana
AGB:mw 8/17/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****