BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1999
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1999 (Brownley)
As Amended April 30, 2012
Majority vote
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 5-2 JUDICIARY 6-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Swanson, Alejo, Allen, |Ayes:|Feuer, Atkins, Dickinson, |
| |Bonnie Lowenthal, Yamada | |Monning, Wieckowski, |
| | | |Alejo |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Morrell, Gorell |Nays:|Wagner, Gorell, Jones |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |
| |Bradford, Charles | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | |
| |Gatto, Ammiano, Hill, | | |
| |Lara, Mitchell, Solorio | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, | | |
| |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Adds "family caregiver status" to the protected
categories of the employment provisions of the Fair Employment
and Housing Act (FEHA). Specifically, this bill :
1)Expands the scope of prohibited bases of discrimination under
employment provisions of FEHA to include "family caregiver
status."
2)Defines "family caregiver status" to mean an individual who
provides medical or supervisory care to a family member.
3)Specifies that "family member" means a child, a parent, a
spouse, a domestic partner, a parent-in-law, a sibling, a
grandparent or a grandchild, as those terms are defined.
AB 1999
Page 2
4)Makes related technical and conforming changes.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill will result in enforcement costs likely in
excess of $150,000 to the Department of Fair Employment and
Housing.
COMMENTS : This bill proposes to include "family caregiver
status" in the list of prohibited bases for employment
discrimination. In the past, discrimination cases have been
brought by employees using existing federal or state statutes
that, while providing remedies for some form of discrimination,
do not directly address an employee's status as a family
caregiver as a protected class. Instead these employees have
had to try to fit their circumstances into narrow definitions in
the statutes, or to ask courts to apply decisional law in many
jurisdictions to their case, to be able to fashion some remedy.
Supporters argue that "family responsibilities discrimination"
(FRD) is discrimination against employees based on their family
care obligations or their status as a caregiver. FRD may
include discrimination against pregnant workers, mothers and
fathers who actively participate in child care, and workers who
care for aging parents, ill or disabled spouses or other family
members.
Although caregiver discrimination is painfully common,
supporters state that no California or federal statute expressly
prohibits discrimination based on family responsibilities. As a
result, most caregiver cases are brought using a patchwork of
claims under federal and state antidiscrimination and leave
laws. Still, this patchwork of claims leaves many workers
unprotected, like fathers who are discriminated against for
family responsibilities, and leaves employers unclear as to what
their obligations are in this area.
Supporters content that this bill would make clear that an
employer may not discriminate against an employee for family
caregiver responsibilities by adding "family caregiver status"
to the list of protected categories (e.g., race, sex, religion,
etc.) under the employment provisions of FEHA.
AB 1999
Page 3
Finally, they argue that this would not only benefit a wide
range of caregivers who struggle daily to balance the demands of
work and family, but would also greatly impact those in need of
care at a time when the state is experiencing record cuts to
social services.
Opponents state that this bill significantly seeks to expand the
protections under FEHA, which will hamper California employers'
ability to conduct business and unfairly subject them to costly
litigation. Opponents contend that such a broad application of
a protected classification will hamper an employers' ability to
manage the workplace, as any adverse employment action the
employer takes against an employee could be potentially
challenged as discriminatory on the basis of "family caregiver
status."
Opponents also argue that California already protects employees
from discrimination on the basis of sex and pregnancy.
Similarly, California provides employees with leave to care for
the serious medical condition of family members, which may be
compensated through California's Paid Family Leave Act.
Opponents note that there were approximately 19,500
discrimination claims filed in 2010 with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing under FEHA, which was 1,000 complaints
more than in 2009. Adding this new expansive classification to
FEHA will only cause such cases to dramatically increase,
placing California employers at a significant disadvantage.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0003847