BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1964
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1964 (Yamada)
As Amended April 30, 2012
Majority vote
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 6-0 JUDICIARY 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Swanson, Alejo, Allen, |Ayes:|Feuer, Wagner, Atkins, |
| |Bonnie Lowenthal, Gorell, | |Dickinson, Gorell, Huber, |
| |Yamada | |Monning, Wieckowski, |
| | | |Alejo |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 14-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |
| |Bradford, Charles | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | |
| |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, | | |
| |Mitchell, Nielsen, | | |
| |Solorio, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Donnelly | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes a number of changes to provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) related to religious
accommodation in employment. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that, for purposes of employment discrimination law
(including accommodation), "religious belief or observance"
includes, but is not limited to, the practice of wearing
religious clothing or a religious hairstyle.
2)Defines "wearing religious clothing or a religious hairstyle"
to be broadly construed and to include:
a) Wearing religious apparel that is part of the observance
of the religious faith practiced by the individual;
AB 1964
Page 2
b) Wearing jewelry or an ornament that is part of the
observance of the religious faith practiced by the
individual;
c) Carrying an object that is part of the observance of the
religious faith practiced by the individual; and,
d) Adopting the presence, absence, or style of a person's
hair or beard that is part of the observance of the
religious faith practiced by the individual.
3)Provides that an accommodation of an individual's wearing of
religious clothing or a religious hairstyle is not reasonable
if it requires segregation of an employee from other employees
or the general public.
4)Provides that an accommodation is not required if it would
result in the violation of specified laws protecting civil
rights.
5)Clarifies that "undue hardship" for purposes of religious and
disability accommodation means as that term is defined
statutorily in FEHA.
6)Adds an additional factor for consideration of whether an
accommodation constitutes an undue hardship: the safety and
health requirements in a facility, including requirements for
the safety of other employees and any other person whose
safety may be adversely impacted by the requested
accommodation.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill will result in minor and absorbable
enforcement costs to the Department of Fair Employment and
Housing.
COMMENTS : The author states that this bill would correct
certain deficiencies in current law by clarifying that the FEHA
definition of undue hardship applies to the FEHA religious
discrimination section (rather than the "de minimus" standard
under federal law). This bill will also specify that
segregation is not a reasonable accommodation and that religious
clothing and religious hairstyles are explicitly included as a
religious belief or observance. The author argues that, in
AB 1964
Page 3
doing so, this bill will provide clarity to ensure that all
religions receive equal protection under the law and that
employees are not put in a position where they cannot perform
their job functions because of their religious belief.
This bill is sponsored by the Sikh Coalition, which argues
that Sikh Californians suffer high levels of employment
discrimination because of their Sikh identity, which
includes a turban, beard, and unshorn hair. According to a
research report issued by the Sikh Coalition in 2010, over
one in ten Sikhs in the San Francisco Bay Area reported
suffering discrimination in employment. The California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation refuses to hire
Sikhs to serve as security guards unless they remove their
religiously-mandated beards. Similarly, police agencies in
California have rejected requests to hire Sikh police
officers unless they remove their turbans. These California
law enforcement agencies refuse to hire Sikhs despite
decisions by both the United States Army and Federal
Protective Service to begin accommodating Sikhs in
government service. They contend that the promise of this
bill is that it will help eliminate the false choice between
one's faith and one's gainful employment.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink/ L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0003646