BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 111
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 111 (Yee)
As Amended June 21, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :21-14
JUDICIARY 6-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Atkins, Dickinson, | | |
| |Huffman, Monning, | | |
| |Wieckowski | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Wagner, Beth Gaines, | | |
| |Jones | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Generally prohibits language discrimination by
business establishments, but permits such discrimination when
justified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Clarifies that it is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
for a business to adopt or enforce a policy that requires,
limits or prohibits the use of any language in or with the
business unless the language is justified by 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.
2)Defines "business necessity," consistently with the existing
definition of that term regarding language discrimination in
employment, as an overriding legitimate business purpose for
which all of the following are true:
a) The language restriction is necessary to the safe and
efficient operation of the business;
b) The language restriction effectively fulfills the
business purpose it is supposed to serve; and,
c) An alternative practice to the language restriction
SB 111
Page 2
that would accomplish the business purpose equally well
with a lesser discriminatory impact does not exist.
3)Provides that this bill does not impose independent liability
for failure to undertake particular duties, and likewise that
the bill does not negate rights, duties, requirements or
remedies under any other law.
4)Clarifies that the bill does not apply to policies or rules
regarding the employment relationship between a business
establishment and its employees.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : The author explains the purpose of the bill as
follows: "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.
The issue stems from a proposed policy announced last summer by
the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) to suspend
players who do not speak English. The LPGA later rescinded the
proposal after objections from Senator Yee and over 50 civil
rights organizations.
"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. Under
SB 111, it would be a violation of state law for an entity to
adopt or enforce a policy that limits, prohibits or restricts
the use of any language in a business establishment, unless the
language restriction is justified by a business necessity and
notification has been provided of the circumstances and the time
when the language restriction is required and of the
consequences."
Language changes, conflicts and accommodations are an enduring
feature of history, nowhere more commonly than in California
which entered the Union as a state with a tradition of multiple
languages, including a large number of Spanish-speaking citizens
and many Chinese laborers.
Language of course is intimately tied to national origin and
cultural identity, as many people inherently understand and
SB 111
Page 3
scholars have frequently documented. Even when an individual
learns English and becomes assimilated into American society,
his or her native language remains an important manifestation of
ethnic identity and a means of affirming links to the culture
and nation of origin.
According to the author and supporters, this bill proposes a
balanced approach to language usage rules - generally
disfavoring such rules because of their obvious effect on
protected national origin groups, but acknowledging that they
may be justified by business necessity in some circumstances,
and should therefore be permissible in those situations provided
that, in the interest of fairness, the people to whom the policy
applies are informed of the policy and the consequences for
violation.
This is the same rule that has long been in effect for
employment policies under both state and federal law, and has
proved to be a rational and workable solution in the workplace,
supporters contend. Under the California Fair Employment
Housing Act, it is an unlawful business practice for an employer
to adopt or enforce a policy that limits or prohibits the use of
any language in any workplace, unless: 1) the language is
justified by a business necessity; and, 2) the employer has
notified its employees of the circumstances and the time when
the language restriction is required to be observed and of the
consequences for violating the language restriction.
To be clear, however, this bill does not apply to the employment
relationship, and the author recently amended the bill to make
this point explicit. Thus, the bill should not be construed as
requiring business establishments to hire multilingual
employees, or alternatively prevent them from hiring monolingual
English-speaking employees.
Moreover, in response to concerns from some business groups that
the bill could be misinterpreted to impose a new duty on
businesses to provide translation or interpreters for customers,
the author amended the bill to clarify that this is not the
intention. In addition, recent amendments clarify that the bill
is independent of and preserves any rights and defenses there
may be under any other law.
SB 111
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0001324