BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1964|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1964
Author: Yamada (D), et al.
Amended: 6/18/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-1, 6/26/12
AYES: Evans, Corbett, Leno
NOES: Harman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakeslee
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 63-6, 5/29/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Discrimination in employment: reasonable
accommodations
SOURCE : The Sikh Coalition
DIGEST : This bill (1) expands the definition of
religious creed in the Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA) to include religious dress or grooming practices, as
defined, (2) provides that a reasonable accommodation for
an individual's religious dress or grooming practice is not
reasonable if the accommodation requires segregation of the
individual from other employees or the public, and (3)
provides that an accommodation for religious belief,
observance, or dress or grooming practice is not required
if it would result in a violation of any other law
prohibiting discrimination or protecting civil rights, as
CONTINUED
AB 1964
Page
2
specified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the FEHA prohibits
discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of
race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry,
physical disability, mental disability, medical condition,
marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation.
(Government Code (GOV) Section 12920 et seq.)
Existing law provides that "religious creed," "religion,"
"religious observance," "religious belief," and "creed"
include all aspects of religious belief, observance, and
practice. (GOV Section 12926 (p))
This bill adds an individual's religious dress practice and
religious grooming practice to the list of religious
considerations on which basis a person may not be
discriminated against in employment.
This bill provides that "religious dress practice" shall be
broadly construed and includes the wearing or carrying of
religious clothing, head or face coverings, jewelry,
artifacts, and any other item that is part of the
observance by an individual of his/her religious creed.
This bill provides that "religious grooming practice" shall
be broadly construed and includes all forms of head,
facial, and body hair that is part of the observance by an
individual of his/her religious creed.
Existing law prohibits, unless based upon a bona fide
occupational qualification, or, except where based upon
applicable security regulations, as specified, an employer
to refuse to hire or employ a person or to refuse to select
a person for a training program leading to employment or to
bar or to discharge a person from employment or from a
training program leading to employment, or to discriminate
against a person in compensation or in terms, conditions,
or privileges of employment because of a conflict between
the person's religious belief or observance and any
employment requirement, unless the employer demonstrates
that it has explored any available reasonable alternative
means of accommodating the religious belief or observance,
including the possibilities of excusing the person from
AB 1964
Page
3
those duties that conflict with his/her religious belief or
observance or permitting those duties to be performed at
another time or by another person, but is unable to
reasonably accommodate the religious belief or observance
without undue hardship on the conduct of the business of
the employer. Religious belief or observance includes, but
is not limited to, observance of a Sabbath or other
religious holy day or days, and reasonable time necessary
for travel prior and subsequent to a religious observance.
(GOV Section 12940(l))
This bill includes in the above section, as part of
religious belief or observance, religious dress or grooming
practice.
This bill provides that an accommodation of an individual's
religious dress or grooming practice is not reasonable if
the accommodation requires segregation of the individual
from other employees or the public.
This bill also provides that an accommodation under the
above section is not required if it would result in a
violation of this part or any other law prohibiting
discrimination or protecting civil rights.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/7/12)
The Sikh Coalition (source)
AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Agudath Israel of California
ACLU of California
American Jewish Committee
Anti-Defamation League
California Employment Lawyers Association
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Nurses Association
Church State Council
Consumer Attorneys of California
Council on American-Islamic Relations - California Chapter
Hindu-American Foundation
Japanese American Citizens League
AB 1964
Page
4
North American Religious Liberty Association - West
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author writes, "AB 1964
strengthens protections of religious freedoms in the
workplace by clarifying that undue hardship, as defined in
the Definitions section of the Fair Employment and Housing
Act, will also apply to the Religious Discrimination
section, clearing up legal confusion of federal vs. state
definitions of 'undue hardship'. The bill would also
specify that religious clothing and hairstyles qualify as a
religious belief or observance and that segregating an
employee from customers or the public is not a reasonable
accommodation of an employee's religious beliefs. This
bill ensures equal employment opportunity for thousands of
Californians who have been relegated to second-class status
in their jobs because of their religious observances or
appearance. This bill is necessary to preserve the
integrity of FEHA with respect to religious
accommodations."
The sponsor of this bill, The Sikh Coalition, writes, "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. The promise of AB 1964 is that it will
help eliminate the false choice between one's faith and
one's gainful employment."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 63-6, 5/29/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
AB 1964
Page
5
Carter, Chesbro, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell,
Grove, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso,
Huffman, Jeffries, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Nielsen, Pan,
Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Skinner, Smyth,
Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski,
Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Donnelly, Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Morrell, Nestande
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cedillo, Conway, Fletcher, Beth Gaines,
Garrick, Halderman, Hall, Mansoor, Norby, Olsen, Silva
RJG:k 8/8/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****