BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1450
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1450 (Allen) - As Amended: April 25, 2012
Policy Committee: Labor and
Employment Vote: 5-1
Judiciary 7-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits employers from excluding job applicants due
to their employment status, as specified. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Defines "employer" as the state and any person who directly or
indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs
or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working
conditions of any person.
2)Defines "employment status" as an individual's present
unemployment, regardless of length of time that the individual
has been unemployed.
3)Prohibits the employer from doing any of the following:
a) Excluding an applicant from the application pool at any
stage of the hiring process or refuse to offer employment
to an individual because of his or her employment status.
b) Advertise a job that indicates an applicant's employment
status is required for the job, will be used to screen
applications, or is considered as part of the application
process, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
GF administrative costs, of at least $360,000, to DIR to
process, review, and investigate complaints. It is estimated
DIR will receive several thousand cases per year. These costs
are associated with additional staff time to enforce this
AB 1450
Page 2
measure.
SUMMARY,CONTINUED
4)Prohibits an employment agency from failing to refer an
individual due to his or her employment status, in addition to
the prohibitions referenced above. Further extends
prohibitions to a person who operates an Internet web site for
posting jobs in this state, as specified.
5)Prohibits an employer, employment agency, or Internet job web
site operator from doing either of the following:
a) Publishing in print or on the Internet a job
announcement for any job that sets forth lawful
qualifications for a job (i.e., specified certification,
licensure, etc.).
b) Printing or circulating an advertisement or solicitation
for a job vacancy that contains any provision stating that
only applicants who are currently employed by the employer
will be considered.
6)Makes an employer, employment agency, or Internet job web site
that violates these provisions subject to a civil penalty not
to exceed $1,000 for the first violation; $5,000 for the
second violation; and $10,000 for each subsequent violation,
enforced by the Labor Commissioner (LC), as specified.
7)Requires a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2013
between a state agency and contractor who is an employer to
comply with the requirements of this measure. Further
specifies failure to comply may be grounds for canceling,
terminating, or suspending the contract, as specified.
8)Authorizes the LC, in accordance with regulations adopted by
the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), to do any
of the following: (a) direct the state agency to cancel,
terminate, or suspend the contract and/or (b) debar the
contractor from eligibility for a future state agency contract
for no more than three years.
COMMENTS
1)Background . The Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits
discrimination in employment on the basis of specified
AB 1450
Page 3
factors, including, race, national origin, sex, age,
disability, and sexual orientation.
Over the last two years, the news media has reported employers
advertising jobs with instructions that "the unemployed need
not apply." This practice lead to the National Employment Law
Project (NELP) conducting a four-week analysis (Spring 2011)
of Internet job sites to see if they were advertising jobs
that excluded applicants based on employment status. The
online research sought information on both employers and
employment staffing firms that were specifically identified by
name. According to NELP's survey, "The snapshot of jobs
postings identified more than 150 ads that included exclusions
based on current employment status, including 125 ads that
identified specific companies by name.
2)Purpose . As of March 2012, the state's unemployment rate was
11%. According to NELP, nearly half of all unemployed
Californians (45.8%) have been actively looking for work for
more than six months, and over one-third (34.5%) have been out
of work for over a year.
The California Labor Federation, co-sponsor of this bill,
contends this recession has given birth to a new form of
discrimination. Across the country, many employers,
employment agencies, and online job websites have begun to
advertise warnings such as "no unemployed candidates
considered" or "must be currently employed." The co-sponsor
argues that this creates a perverse "catch-22" wherein these
employers require an applicant already have a job in order to
find a job.
This bill prohibits employers from excluding job applicants
due to their employment status, as specified.
3)Opposition . Many business organizations oppose to this
measure, including, but not limited to, the California
Apartment Association, the California Bankers Association, the
California Grocers Association, and the CALChamber.
According to the CALChamber, "�This bill] will essentially
prohibit employers from legitimately inquiring into an
applicant's employment history, due to fear that any such
inquiry will ultimately lead to penalties and costs on the
basis that the applicant was discriminated against because of
AB 1450
Page 4
his or her status as unemployed. It also unfairly targets
state contractors by imposing a three-year debarment from
state contracts if found to have violated the provisions of
this bill, thus essentially providing a hiring preference for
the unemployed with state contractors."
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081