BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1964
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1964 (Yamada)
As Amended August 21, 2012
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |63-6 |(May 29, 2012) |SENATE: |32-4 |(August 27, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. & E.
SUMMARY : Makes a number of changes to provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) related to religious
accommodation in employment.
The Senate amendments :
1)Recast provisions of the bill to protect "religious dress and
grooming practices," rather than "wearing religious clothing
or a religious hairstyle" (as under the prior version of the
bill).
2)Define "religious dress practice" to be construed broadly and
to include 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 or her
religious creed.
3)Define "religious grooming practice" to be construed broadly
to include all forms of head, facial, and body hair that are
part of the observance by any individual of his or her
religious creed.
4)Make related and conforming changes to the bill.
5)Add a co-author.
6)Avoid a chaptering out conflict with another pending bill that
amends the same provisions of existing law.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Specified that, for purposes of employment discrimination law
(including accommodation), "religious belief or observance"
AB 1964
Page 2
includes, but is not limited to, the practice of wearing
religious clothing or a religious hairstyle.
2)Defined "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;
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)Provided 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)Provided that an accommodation is not required if it would
result in the violation of specified laws protecting civil
rights.
5)Clarified that "undue hardship" for purposes of religious and
disability accommodation means as that term is defined
statutorily in FEHA.
6)Added 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 Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : The author states that this bill would correct
certain deficiencies in current law by clarifying that the FEHA
AB 1964
Page 3
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
dress and grooming are explicitly included as a religious belief
or observance. The author argues that, in 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 sponsor
contends that 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:
0005360