BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 111|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 111
Author: Yee (D), et al.
Amended: 3/14/11
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 4/5/11
AYES: Evans, Corbett, Leno
NOES: Harman, Blakeslee
SUBJECT : Civil rights: language restrictions
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill makes it a violation of the Unruh
Civil Rights Act to adopt or enforce a policy that limits
or prohibits the use of any language in a business
establishment, unless the language is justified by a
business necessity and notification has been provided of
the circumstances and the time when the language
restriction is required to be observed, and of the
consequences for its violation.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act,
generally prohibits business establishments from
discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical
condition, and provides civil remedies for violations of
its provisions. (Civil Code Section 51 et seq.)
Existing law, the California Fair Employment Housing Act
CONTINUED
SB 111
Page
2
(FEHA), provides that it is an unlawful employment practice
for an employer to adopt or enforce a policy that prohibits
the use of any language in the workplace, except if that
policy is justified by business necessity and prescribed
notice of the policy and consequences for violation of the
policy is given to employees. (Government Code Sections
12900-12996)
This bill makes it a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights
Act to adopt or enforce a policy that limits or prohibits
the use of any language in a business establishment, unless
the language is justified by a business necessity and
notification has been provided of the circumstances and the
time when the language restriction is required to be
observed, and of the consequences for its violation.
This bill defines "business necessity" as an overriding
legitimate business purpose for which all of the following
are true: (1) the language restriction is necessary to the
safe and efficient operation of the business; (2) the
language restriction effectively fulfills the business
purpose it is supposed to serve; and (3) an alternative
practice to the language restriction that would accomplish
the business purpose equally well with a lesser
discriminatory impact does not exist. This definition of
"business necessity" is consistent with the one codified in
the FEHA.
This bill provides for an award of damages, and attorney's
fees as may be determined by the court, for a violation of
its provisions.
This bill provides that no provision of this bill shall be
construed to require a business establishment to provide
customer service in a particular language unless otherwise
required by law.
This bill provides that any prohibitions and defenses in
this bill are in addition to any other prohibitions and
defenses of any other section of law.
This bill permits the rights and remedies provided by this
bill to be enforced independently of any other rights and
remedies.
CONTINUED
SB 111
Page
3
NOTE: This bill does not alter the provisions of
Government Code Section 12951 which relate to the
employment relationship between a business
establishment and its employees.
Prior legislation . This bill is substantially similar to
SB 242 (Yee, 2009) which was vetoed by the Governor due to
concerns that it would increase frivolous lawsuits. In his
veto message the Governor stated:
"While no one should be treated differently based on
their race or national origin, no single business can
accommodate every language spoken in California.
Unfortunately, under this measure, any business that
treats customers differently because the business may not
be able to effectively communicate with the customer
could then be required to justify such disparate
treatment in a court of law. Since this measure would
have the unintended effect of increasing frivolous
lawsuits against businesses, I am unable to sign this
bill."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/6/11)
Advancement Project
American Civil Liberties Union
Anti-Defamation League
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
Asian Law Caucus
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
California Communities United Institute
California Federation of Teachers, AFT, AFL-CIO
California Language Teachers Association
California Nurses Association
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Consumer Attorneys of California
Consumer Federation of California
Korean American Bar Association of Southern California
Korean American Chamber of Commerce
CONTINUED
SB 111
Page
4
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
OPPOSITION : (Verified 4/11/11)
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Associated General Contractors
California Automotive Business Coalition
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Framing Contractors Association
California Grocers Association
California Independent Grocers Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Capitol Resource Family Impact
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
"While speaking one's native language is protected in
cases of employment and housing under state law, such
protections are not provided under the state's civil
rights act, which prohibits discrimination within
business establishments.
"Unless English is justified by a business necessity, no
one should be discriminated against simply for speaking
their language. SB 111 will rightfully add language to
the list of protected classes within California's civil
rights act."
The Consumer Attorneys of California support this bill
writing that it "is consistent with the principles of the
Unruh Civil Rights Act, since language is often associated
with a person's national origin. Arbitrary bans on foreign
languages could easily be used to mask intentional
discrimination on the basis of national origin."
Also in support, the American Civil Liberties Union writes
that "this legislation makes it explicit that a business
establishment that requires or prohibits the use of any
language violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act. It is our
view that under the language of the Act and existing case
law, business establishments have been prohibited from
CONTINUED
SB 111
Page
5
engaging in this discriminatory behavior ? this bill makes
it clear."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Chamber of
Commerce, the Associated Builders and Contractors of
California, the California Automotive Business Coalition,
the California Business Properties Association, the
California Framing Contractors Association, the California
Grocers Association, and the California Retailers
Association raise concern that this bill would have
unintended consequences for businesses due to the "vague
and ambiguous language" in the bill. The opposition
believes that it is unclear what obligations businesses
will have under this bill, specifically "whether businesses
will be required to (1) provide written notice in all
recognized languages to all customers regarding any
required language used in the establishment; or (2) ensure
that all menus, signage, and services offered in the
establishment are provided in all recognized languages."
The opposition also notes concern that since this bill
creates a private right of action, meritless lawsuits will
be filed "for the sole purpose of obtaining a quick
settlement."
RJG:mw 4/11/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED