BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
As Amended April 23, 2012
Hearing Date: May 8, 2012
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TW
SUBJECT
Liability: Reliance on Administrative Regulation
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide that any person who relies upon a
written order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement
policy of a state agency is not liable or subject to punishment
for a violation of a civil statute or regulation in a judicial
or administrative proceeding if the person pleads and proves to
the trier of fact that, at the time of the alleged act or
omission, the person did both of the following:
sought an applicable written order, ruling, approval,
interpretation, or enforcement policy from the state agency
charged with interpreting that particular area of law; and
relied upon and conformed to the applicable written order,
ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy.
BACKGROUND
After the Bacon-Davis Act of 1931 (40 U.S.C.S. Sec. 276a et
seq.), the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act of 1936 (41 U.S.C.S.
Sec. 35 et seq.), and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C.S. Sec. 201 et seq.) were enacted to provide labor
standards and employee protections, Congress found that these
Acts had been "interpreted judicially in disregard of
long-established customs, practices, and contracts between
employers and employees, thereby creating wholly unexpected
liabilities, immense in amount and retroactive in operation,
upon employers. . . ." (29 U.S.C.S. Sec. 251.)
For this reason, Congress enacted the Portal-to-Portal Act of
(more)
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 2 of ?
1947, which was intended to relieve and protect interstate
commerce from practices which burden and obstruct it, protect
the right of collective bargaining, and define and limit the
jurisdiction of the courts. (29 U.S.C.S. Sec. 251.) At that
time and in order to avoid substantial employer losses for labor
violations of the recently enacted statutes, the
Portal-to-Portal Act provided an affirmative defense for
employers who failed to pay minimum wages or overtime
compensation in reliance on the interpretations and opinions of
the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. (29
U.S.C.S. Sec. 259(a).)
In 2011, SB 883 (Correa, 2011) was introduced and provided
affirmative defenses for employers similar to those provided
under the Portal-to-Portal Act. The bill also would have
applied to all actions and proceedings that had not resulted in
a final judgment, regardless of whether the action or proceeding
was commenced, or based upon an alleged act or omission that
occurred, before, on, or after the effective date of the bill.
SB 883 was double-referred to the Senate Labor and Industrial
Relations Committee and this Committee. The measure was set for
hearing in the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee
but was pulled from calendar by the author.
This bill, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, is
similar to SB 883 and the Portal-to-Portal Act, and would shield
an individual from liability if he or she relied upon a written
order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy,
as specified.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing federal law , the Portal-to-Portal Act, provides that,
in any action or proceeding based on any act or omission, no
employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment for or
on account of the failure of the employer to pay minimum wages
or overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, as amended, the Walsh-Healey Act, or the Bacon-Davis Act,
if he pleads and proves that the act or omission complained of
was in good faith in conformity with and in reliance on any
written administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, or
interpretation, of the agency of the United States, as specified
in, or any administrative practice or enforcement policy of such
agency with respect to the class of employers to which he
belonged. (29 USCS Sec. 259(a).)
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 3 of ?
Existing federal law provides that such a defense, if
established, shall be a bar to the action or proceeding,
notwithstanding that after such act or omission, such
administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval,
interpretation, practice, or enforcement policy is modified or
rescinded or is determined by judicial authority to be invalid
or of no legal effect. (Id.)
This bill would provide that any person who relies upon a
written order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement
policy of a state agency is not liable or subject to punishment
for a violation of a civil statute or regulation in a judicial
or administrative proceeding if the person pleads and proves to
the trier of fact that, at the time of the alleged act or
omission, the person did both of the following:
1.sought an applicable written order, ruling, approval,
interpretation, or enforcement policy from the state agency
charged with interpreting that particular area of law; and
2.relied upon and conformed to the applicable written order,
ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy.
This bill would permit this affirmative defense to apply even
if, after the act or omission occurred, the order, ruling,
approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy upon which the
person relied is modified, rescinded, or determined by a court
to be invalid or of no legal effect.
This bill would specify that the affirmative defense shall not
apply if the alleged act or omission occurred after the order,
ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy upon
which the person relied is modified, rescinded, or determined by
judicial authority to be invalid or of no legal effect.
This bill would provide that its provisions apply to all actions
and proceedings that have not resulted in a final judgment on or
after January 1, 2013, regardless of whether the action or
proceeding was commenced, or based upon, an alleged act or
omission that occurred before, on, or after January 1, 2013.
This bill would provide that nothing in the bill shall be
construed to give any greater legal weight to an order, ruling,
approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy than it would
otherwise have in the absence of the bill.
This bill would specify that nothing in the bill shall be
construed to require a state agency to issue an order, ruling,
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 4 of ?
approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
Currently, employers and other citizens of California are
expected to seek out advice from state agencies regarding how
to comply with various laws. However if a citizen receives
written advice from a state agency regarding how to comply
with the law, follows that advice, and is later sued based
upon their actions, there is no benefit or security from the
fact that their actions were in conformity with the advice
they received from a state agency. . . .
Residents of California should be able to rely upon the
written advice and guidance they receive from state agencies
that are created for the very purpose of interpreting and
enforcing the laws of this state. Residents should not be
held liable and punished for believing and trusting what the
state instructs them to do. SB 1374 seeks to provide
residents with the security in knowing they can rely upon
information they receive from the government.
A coalition of business groups in support of this bill write:
California has more than 500 agencies that are charged with
the responsibility and authority to interpret and enforce
laws. Citizens of California are expected and encouraged to
seek out guidance and information from these various agencies
to determine how to comply with California's numerous laws and
regulations. Ironically, however, if an individual or
business seeks guidance from one of these agencies and relies
upon the information they are provided, they are given no
protection or benefit if litigation is ultimately filed to
challenge the agencies' advice.
For example, the California Department of Insurance (DOI)
regulates and enforces insurance laws. Pursuant to
Proposition 103, various lines of insurance must seek prior
written approval from the DOI regarding any rate that is
charged to consumers. In fact, the approved rate is the only
rate an insurance company subject to this process is allowed
to charge. Yet, if an insurance company charges the required
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 5 of ?
rate and a consumer challenges the rate on the basis it is
unfair or discriminatory, the insurance company is provided no
benefit for the fact that it was specifically directed by a
state agency to charge the rate at issue.
Similarly, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE)
is a state agency that is charged with the responsibility and
authority to enforce the wage, hour, and working condition
labor laws. As a part of its effort to fulfill this
responsibility, the DLSE issues opinion letters on various
wage, hour, and working condition topics, as well as an
enforcement manual that sets forth the DLSE's interpretation
and position on these issues. Currently, employers are
encouraged to refer to the DLSE's written materials for
"guidance" on these topics when there is no published,
on-point case available. However, employers are provided with
no certainty that they will be shielded from liability if they
comply in good faith with the DLSE's written opinions or
interpretations.
SB 1374 eliminates this problem and provides citizens of
California the security to know that if they seek out and
receive written advice from state agencies regarding how to
comply with the law, they can actually rely upon that
information. SB 1374 provides such citizens with legal
protection if their actions are challenged in litigation and
they can prove that their actions were based upon guidance
received from a state agency. This policy provides
credibility to California's state agencies charged with the
responsibility to enforce such laws and will help to eradicate
the negative public perception of state government.
Notably, there is already precedent in the law for giving
individuals protection when they rely on the advice of
government. In California, a taxpayer may be relieved of all
taxes, interest, and penalties if they can demonstrate that
the taxpayer's failure to remit taxes was based upon the
taxpayer's reasonable reliance upon the written advice of the
chief counsel of the Franchise Tax Board. Similarly, the
federal government allows the same defense for employers who
rely in good faith upon the advice, opinion letters, and
guidance of the Department of Labor regarding the Fair Labor
Standards Act. See 29 U.S.C. sections 258-259. In its
findings and declaration of policy regarding the
Portal-to-Portal Act, in which this affirmative defense is
found, Congress recognized that "uncertainty on the part of
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 6 of ?
industry," as well as "the difficulties in the sound and
orderly conduct of business and industry," could negatively
impact commerce. Accordingly, Congress enacted the
Portal-to-Portal Act, which included this affirmative defense
for employers who rely upon the interpretations and opinions
of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor.
Echoing the same concerns here, uncertainty for California
citizens regarding the correct application of California's
numerous laws and regulations detrimentally impacts the
state's economy and is a significant burden for those trying
to conduct business. Providing certainty through SB 1374 will
assist in relieving this burden on employers and every other
citizen of California, thereby producing a better business
environment, growth in the economy, and improve public
perception of our government.
2. Portal-to-Portal Act
This bill would allow an employer, in reliance on a written
order of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), to
claim an affirmative defense against an employee's wage claim if
the employer proves that he or she sought an applicable order
from the DLSE and relied upon and conformed to the order. This
affirmative defense is similar to that provided under the
Portal-to-Portal Act, which allows an employer to escape
liability for Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations if
the employer shows that it acted in good faith conformity with,
and in reliance upon, a written regulation, order, ruling,
approval, or interpretation of Department of Labor's Wage and
Hour Division, or any administrative practice or enforcement of
the Division with respect to the class of employers to which it
belonged. (29 U.S.C.S. Sec. 259.)
Supporters of this bill argue that, under existing law,
"employers are provided with no certainty that they will be
shielded from liability if they comply in good faith with the
DLSE's written opinions or interpretations." Further, the
author argues that Californians should not be held liable and
punished for believing and trusting what the state instructs
them to do.
On the other hand, Consumer Attorneys of California argue in
opposition that this bill "would insulate employers and other
private individuals who rely on agency interpretations from
liability, even if those interpretations are in direct conflict
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 7 of ?
with relevant law." In support of this argument, the California
Labor Federation, also in opposition to this bill, states:
SB 1374 would eliminate all liability for employers if they
asked for and relied upon a state agency's interpretation of a
regulation or statute. This approach would make it harder to
protect workers' rights and erode the incentive to comply with
the law. To begin with, if a worker is not paid wages owed,
he or she suffers harm regardless of the employer's rationale.
By eliminating liability, this bill would punish a worker for
something he or she had no control over. There is no good
policy reason for letting an employer off the hook for not
paying a worker the wages he or she has earned.
In addition, this type of safe harbor presumes that an
employer provides accurate information to a state agency. For
example, if an employer contacts the Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement �DLSE] to ask about classifying a worker
as an independent contractor, he or she could withhold
relevant facts that would lead the agency to advise them that
this worker was actually an employee. Then the employer could
use that opinion, based upon inaccuracies, to avoid liability
for cheating the worker and the state through deliberate
misclassification. In essence, this proposal invites game
playing.
Opponents of this bill also argue that the bill politicizes the
role of enforcement agencies and cite to the Schwarzenegger
Administration's efforts to change enforcement practices and
underlying regulations on meal periods.
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF), an
opponent of this bill, argues that:
SB 1374 would extend an unprecedented 'safe harbor' against
wage liability to an employer who successfully seeks, and
relies on, an opinion letter issued by the �DLSE]. This
unwise and unwarranted policy is certain to create significant
pressures on future administrations to carve out
employer-specific DLSE opinions which would bring them within
the immunity offered by this bill.
For example, a recently-settled class action by CRLAF for $2.2
million in allegedly unpaid off-the-clock wages might create
an incentive for that agricultural employer and farm labor
contractor to try to tweak the factual circumstances of
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 8 of ?
employment in the future in order to solicit a favorable
opinion from a sympathetic DLSE.
At issue in that case was what constituted "hours worked"
under state and federal law. Previous opinion letters by DLSE
on this subject make clear that what constitutes "hours
worked" is "highly fact specific" for which there is "no
bright line." This bill would create a powerful incentive for
that employer to try to restructure and tweak the conditions
of employment in order to create enough of a factual
difference from prior opinion letters to secure what would be
an employer-specific exemption that would stand until the
opinion letter was withdrawn, revised or overturned by
litigation. SB 1374 not only invites this mischief, but, in
our view, makes it inevitable.
Additionally, courts have held that a good faith defense under
the Portal-to-Portal Act relieves an employer for liability for
liquidated damages under collective bargaining agreements "'if
the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act
or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and
that �the employer] had reasonable grounds for believing that
�its] act or omission was not a violation of the �FLSA].'"
Thomas v. Howard Univ. Hosp. (1994) 39 F.3d 370, 372. The
Thomas court reasoned as follows:
The Portal-to-Portal Act added another provision, the one with
which we are concerned, giving courts discretion to disallow
liquidated damages "if the employer shows to the satisfaction
of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such
action was in good faith and that �the employer] had
reasonable grounds for believing that �its] act or omission
was not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act." . . .
In most instances an employer will be able to satisfy
�Section] 260's "reasonable grounds" requirement only if it
has relied on a reasonable, albeit erroneous, interpretation
of the �FLSA] or of the regulations issued thereunder. . . .
Relief for employers in those circumstances was at the heart
of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947. At the time, judicial
interpretations contrary to "long-established customs,
practices, and contracts" had created "wholly unexpected
liabilities" for overtime compensation, "including liquidated
damages." . . . In actions commenced after �Section] 260's
effective date, Congress gave the courts discretion to reduce
the liability of those employers surprised by a judicial or
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 9 of ?
administrative interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
-- employers, that is, who had reasonable grounds for thinking
the law was other than it turned out to be. (Id. at 373;
internal citations omitted.)
As such, with respect to violations of overtime compensation
claimed by an employee, as long as the employer reasonably
relied, mistakenly, on an interpretation of the FLSA, the
employer could avoid liability for liquidated damages simply
because of a good faith belief that the overtime compensation
was being properly computed.
This bill would provide for immunity from liability based on a
mistaken interpretation of law as provided in the
Portal-to-Portal Act, which potentially would allow an employer
to pervert the justice system by utilizing a labor order
misinterpreting existing law to the detriment of the employee.
The California State Pipe Trades Council, the California State
Association of Electrical Workers, and the Western States
Council of Sheet Workers argue that "this bill will allow state
agencies to usurp the power of the judiciary in their
adjudicatory role in resolving labor disputes." This bill would
permit an affirmative defense to apply even if, after the act or
omission occurred, the order, ruling, approval, interpretation,
or enforcement policy upon which the person relied is later
modified, rescinded, or determined by a court to be invalid or
of no legal effect.
3. Precedence of affirmative defense of reliance on public agency
opinion
In addition to wage cases, this bill would apply to any and all
persons who are involved in litigation based upon a violation in
which the defendant may claim an affirmative defense for relying
on a state agency order. This affirmative defense has the
effect of eliminating a court's discretion over whether the
individual was civilly liable for harm caused by the violation.
Supporters of this bill argue that "there is already precedent
in the law for giving individuals protection when they rely on
the advice of government."
a. Taxpayer relief
For example, supporters state that California taxpayers, who
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 10 of ?
fail to pay taxes because they reasonably relied on the
written advice of the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB),
can be relieved of all taxes, interest, and penalties.
The California Taxpayers Bill of Rights, Revenue and Taxation
Code Section 21012(a), provides taxpayers relief from assessed
taxes, interest and penalties in certain situations where
taxpayers relied upon written advice of the FTB. In order to
receive relief from taxes, interest, and penalties, the
taxpayer must meet several criteria as follows:
the person or representative requested in writing that
FTB advise him or her whether a particular prospective
activity or transaction is subject to tax, and fully
described the facts and circumstances of the transaction or
activity in the request. A request for a Chief Counsel
Ruling shall specifically so state;
FTB responded in writing, stating whether the described
activity is subject to tax, or stating the conditions under
which the activity or transaction is subject to tax. ;
the person reasonably relied upon the advice and did not
remit the tax due; and
the ruling has not been rescinded or revoked before the
taxpayer relied upon it or before the occurrence of the
transaction or activity. (FTB Notice 2009-09.)
FTB Notice 2009-09 also provides that under no circumstances
may a taxpayer rely upon an FTB Chief Counsel Ruling issued to
another taxpayer. Further, in order for a taxpayer to receive
relief from failing to pay taxes, the original request or
application for exemption must not have contained any
misrepresentation of material facts.
This bill does not contain these same limitations on relief.
Rather, this bill would provide relief from liability to any
person who relies upon a written order, ruling, approval,
interpretation, or enforcement policy of a state agency,
regardless of whether the order, ruling, approval,
interpretation, or enforcement policy relied upon was
addressed to the person claiming the affirmative defense under
this bill yet based upon that person's particular facts.
Further, the California Employment Lawyers Association, an
opponent of this bill, argues that:
SB 1374 is not limited to labor practices. Indeed, any
determined business could use this bill to exempt itself
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 11 of ?
from any law it doesn't like. In effect, the bill creates
a private right of repeal for any business that is
sufficiently determined and clever or dishonest enough to
obtain the desired exemption. That is an affront to the
right of the people to enact laws and see them enforced and
interferes in a fundamental way with the role of the
legislature. (Emphasis in original.)
Additionally, this bill does not provide any judicial review
of possible misrepresentation of facts by the defendant, or
any other person who requested the opinion from a state
agency. Instead, this bill would allow the defendant relief
from liability based upon the defendant's interpretation of
the agency's opinion, leaving the court to decide whether the
interpretation was reasonable under the circumstances claimed
by the defendant.
a. Employer relief
Supporters also argue that there is precedence for this bill
in the Portal-to-Portal Act, which provides employers
protection from liability when they reasonably rely on a DLSE
order. The court in Thomas v. Howard Univ. Hosp. (1994) 39
F.3d 370 provided an instructive discussion on the need for
enacting the Portal-to-Portal Act as follows:
Section 207(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
commonly known as the "maximum hours provision," entitles
an employee who works more than forty hours in a "workweek"
to receive from his employer "one and one-half times the
regular rate at which he is employed" for such "excess"
work. . . . The original Act rendered employers who
violated the maximum hours provision automatically liable
not only for unpaid overtime compensation, but also for an
equivalent amount in "liquidated damages." . . . In the
mid-1940's, the Supreme Court construed - or as a later
Congress thought, misconstrued - "workweek" to include
activities preliminary and incidental to the employee's
work. . . . This construction retroactively transformed
the workweeks of thousands of employees into more than
forty hours and laid at the doors of their employers
millions of dollars in "wholly unexpected liabilities" for
overtime compensation and liquidated damages. . . .
Congress took quick, corrective action, passing the
Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 . . . to extinguish those
"unexpected liabilities," and to define "workweek" to
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 12 of ?
exclude certain preliminary activities. (Id. at 371.)
Unlike the need in the Portal-to-Portal Act, the author has
not provided any materials to support an impending crisis
necessitating a broad affirmative defense, as provided in this
bill. Further, other than the Portal-to-Portal Act, the
author has not provided any additional statutory support
showing other instances where an affirmative action may be
claimed for reliance on a state agency decision. For these
reasons, the Committee may want to consider whether it is
appropriate to provide the broad affirmative defense in this
bill without reviewing substantial support showing the need
for this type of liability protection or other statutes
providing such a broad immunity from liability.
4. Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Service, Inc.
The Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF), an opponent
of this bill, argues that this bill essentially overturns the
court decision in Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Service,
Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1502, "where the appellate court
found that California's statutory and regulatory oversight of
pesticide use was intended primarily to ensure safety standards
and not to displace private common law tort remedies for harm
caused by pesticides."
In Jacobs Farm, the defendant claimed a defense based in part
upon collateral estoppel; a deputy commissioner found that the
defendant had not violated the law. The Jacobs Farm court, in
denying the defendant's collateral estoppel claim reasoned:
Almost 60 years ago, the Attorney General issued an opinion
with which we agree today. The opinion was rendered in
response to questions about the effect of the then newly
enacted provisions requiring a permit for the application of
potentially injurious agricultural chemicals. Responding to
concern that compliance with permit requirements might relieve
pesticide applicators from liability for negligent acts, the
Attorney General opined: "Nowhere does it state that if one
has secured the necessary permit and has observed all the
established rules and regulations, he should be held blameless
for his negligent act. The rules and regulations as
established from time to time will undoubtedly indicate the
manner in which an individual who desires to be free of
negligence should operate. The mere fact, however, that he
follows the rules and regulations does not in itself guarantee
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 13 of ?
he is free of negligence. And nowhere is he relieved of
responsibility for his negligent acts." (18 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.
221, 223 (1951).)
In sum, to the extent defendant argues that the deputy
commissioner's decision should have had some preclusive effect
upon plaintiff's claims for damages, we reject it. In this
regard, the statutory scheme and the common law are
complementary, not conflicting. Plaintiff's lawsuit had no
effect upon the commissioner's ability to regulate pesticide
use or upon the validity of the deputy commissioner's
conclusion as it pertained to defendant's liability under the
pesticide laws. Similarly, the deputy commissioner's
determination that defendant had complied with the law did not
bar plaintiff from pursuing defendant for damages arising from
its alleged lack of due care. (Id. at 1525.)
CAFF argues that:
SB 1374 would extend the protection from being sued that is
afforded to government employees when they misinterpret the
law to private parties who rely on such misinterpretations.
In the Jacob's Farm case, this would have meant that the
defendant would not have been liable for the contamination of
the organic crops because defendant relied on a
misinterpretation of the pesticide laws by the Agricultural
Commissioner.
In our experience, the Agricultural Commissioners and the
Department of Pesticide Regulation commonly misinterpret the
pesticide laws in this manner and have been under a lot of
political pressure to do so. Volatilization of pesticides and
herbicides is a common phenomenon and will become worse in the
US EPA approves Dow's petition for 2-4d-resistant corn. To
create a law like SB 1374 that allows private parties to hid
behind the immunity granted government employees, who are
themselves subject to political pressure by the very people
they are regulating, is to create even more opportunity for
private parties to pressure government employees to interpret
laws in their favor.
5. Bill would impact pending litigation
This bill would expressly apply to all actions and proceedings
that have not resulted in a final judgment on or after January
1, 2013, regardless of whether the action or proceeding was
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 14 of ?
commenced, or based upon, an alleged act or omission that
occurred before, on, or after January 1, 2013.
In the past, this Committee has raised concerns about bills that
interfere with pending litigation. Any such interference could
result in a direct financial windfall to a private party,
prevent a court from deciding an action based upon the laws in
place at the time the cause of action accrued, or create a
situation where the Legislative branch is used to circumvent the
discretion and independence of the Judicial branch.
Support : Agricultural Council of California; Air Conditioning
Trade Association; American Council of Engineering Companies -
California; American Forest and Paper Association; Associated
Builders and Contractors of California; Associated General
Contractors; Association of California Insurance Companies; Brea
Chamber of Commerce; Building Owners and Managers Association of
California; California Aerospace Technology Association;
California Association of Bed & Breakfast Inns; California
Association of Health Facilities; California Association of
Licensed Security Agencies, Guards and Associates; California
Attraction and Parks Association; California Building Industry
Association; California Business Properties Association;
California Chapter of American Fence Association; California
Delivery Association; California Fence Contractors' Association;
California Framing Contractors Association; California Grocers
Association; California Hospital Association; California Hotel
and Lodging Association; California Independent Grocers
Association; California Independent Oil Marketers Association;
California League of Food Processors; California Manufacturers
and Technology Association; California Metals Coalition;
California New Car Dealers Association; California Retailers
Association; California Trucking Association; Chambers of
Commerce Alliance of Ventura & Santa Barbara Counties; Chemical
Industry Council of California; Civil Justice Association of
California; Consumer Specialty Products Association; CSAC Excess
Insurance Authority; Engineering Contractors' Association;
Flasher Barricade Association; Fresno Chamber of Commerce;
Fullerton Chamber of Commerce; Golden State Builders Exchanges;
Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce; International Council of
Shopping Centers; Marin Builders Association ; Messenger Courier
Association of America; NAIOP of California, the Commercial Real
Estate Development Association; National Association of Mutual
Insurance Companies; National Federation of Independent
Business; Network of Domestic Referral Agencies; Orange County
SB 1374 (Harman & Correa)
Page 15 of ?
Business Council; Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance
Companies; Personal Insurance Federation of California;
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California;
Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce and Convention-Visitors Bureau;
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce; TechAmerica; United
Contractors; Western Electrical Contractors Association, Inc;
Western Growers Association
Opposition : California Conference Board of the Amalgamated
Transit Union; California Employment Lawyers Association;
California Labor Federation; California Nurses Association;
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; California State
Association of Electrical Workers; California State Pipe Trades
Council; California Teamsters Public Affairs Council; Community
Alliance with Family Farmers; Consumer Attorneys of California;
Engineers and Scientists of California; Food & Water Watch;
International Longshore & Warehouse Union; Professional &
Technical Engineers, Local 21; UNITED HERE; United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council; Utility
Workers Union of America, Local 132; Western States Council of
Sheet Workers
HISTORY
Source : California Chamber of Commerce
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : SB 883 (Correa, 2011) See Background.
**************