BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   SB 111|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                              UNFINISHED BUSINESS


          Bill No:  SB 111
          Author:   Yee (D), et al.
          Amended:  6/21/11
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE  :  3-2, 4/5/11
          AYES:  Evans, Corbett, Leno
          NOES:  Harman, Blakeslee

           SENATE FLOOR  :  21-14, 4/11/11
          AYES:  Alquist, Corbett, De Le�n, DeSaulnier, Evans, 
            Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete 
            McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Simitian, Steinberg, 
            Vargas, Wolk, Wright, Yee
          NOES:  Anderson, Berryhill, Cannella, Dutton, Emmerson, 
            Fuller, Gaines, Harman, Huff, La Malfa, Runner, 
            Strickland, Walters, Wyland
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Blakeslee, Calderon, Correa, Lieu, Rubio
           
          ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  50-25, 7/11/11 - See last page for vote


           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 
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 111
                                                                Page 
          2

          the circumstances and the time when the language 
          restriction is required to be observed, and of the 
          consequences for its violation. 

           Assembly Amendments  (1) provide 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, and (2) clarify that this bill does not apply to 
          policies or rules regarding the employment relationship 
          between a business establishment and its employees. 

           NOTE:  The amendments taken in the Assembly removed all 
                 opposition to this bill.

           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 
          (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 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 111
                                                                Page 
          3

          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 specifies that these provisions do not impose an 
          independent duty on any business establishment to 
          advertise, serve, contract, or communicate with customers 
          or potential customers in a particular language.  However, 
          nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, limit, 
          or negate any duties, requirements, remedies, or rights 
          provided under Section 51 or any other 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. 

           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."

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 111
                                                                Page 
          4


           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No   
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT :   (Verified  7/12/11)

          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
          California Immigration Policy Center
          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
          Editorial - La Opini�n
          Equality California 
          Korean American Bar Association of Southern California
          Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
          San Francisco Korean American Chamber of Commerce
          The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center

           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 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 111
                                                                Page 
          5

          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 
          engaging in this discriminatory behavior ? this bill makes 
          it clear."


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  50-25, 7/11/11
          AYES:  Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Block, Blumenfield, 
            Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles 
            Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Davis, 
            Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, 
            Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, 
            Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, 
            Mendoza, Monning, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, 
            Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, 
            Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
          NOES:  Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly, 
            Fletcher, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Halderman, Harkey, 
            Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, 
            Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, 
            Wagner
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Beall, Gorell, Hagman, Logue, Mitchell


          RJG:mw  7/12/11   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****
          






                                                           CONTINUED