BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                          AB 1001
                                                          Page  1

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1001 (Villaraigosa)
As Amended May 28, 1999
Majority vote 

  HOUSING             7-4         LABOR               6-3         
  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
|Ayes:|Lowenthal, Corbett,       |Ayes:|Steinberg, Gallegos,      |
|     |Dutra, Knox, Cedillo,     |     |Knox, Kuehl, Romero,      |
|     |Torlakson, Wildman        |     |Keeley                    |
|     |                          |     |                          |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|House, Battin, Olberg,    |Nays:|Margett, McClintock,      |
|     |Runner                    |     |Oller                     |
|     |                          |     |                          |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|     |                          |     |                          |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
  APPROPRIATIONS      14-7                                        
  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
|Ayes:|Migden, Cedillo, Davis,   |     |                          |
|     |Hertzberg, Kuehl, Papan,  |     |                          |
|     |Romero, Shelley,          |     |                          |
|     |Steinberg, Thomson,       |     |                          |
|     |Wesson, Wiggins, Wright,  |     |                          |
|     |Aroner                    |     |                          |
|     |                          |     |                          |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Brewer, Ashburn, Battin,  |     |                          |
|     |Pescetti, Maldonaldo,     |     |                          |
|     |Runner, Zettel            |     |                          |
|     |                          |     |                          |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
  SUMMARY  :  Amends the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to  
prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and  
deletes a similar provision in the Labor Code. Codifies current  
case law regarding housing discrimination. Specifically,  this  
bill  :  

1)Defines "sexual orientation" as "heterosexuality,  
  homosexuality, and bisexuality."

2)Defines sexual orientation as an unlawful basis for  








                                                          AB 1001
                                                          Page  2

  discrimination in employment and housing and amends the FEHA  
  to include sexual orientation in list of actionable  
  discriminatory practices.

3)Declares that the opportunity to seek and obtain employment  
  free from discrimination is a civil right.

4)Prohibits the owner of any housing accommodation from making  
  any inquiry, oral or written, regarding an applicant's sexual  
  orientation and from discriminating against the applicant. 

5)Prohibits any person or entity that provides financial  
  assistance for the purchase or construction of housing from  
  discriminating against any person or group of persons because  
  of sexual orientation.

6)Deletes the prohibition on employment discrimination based on  
  sexual orientation from the Labor Code. 

  FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
analysis, this bill will generate annual General Fund costs of  
$450,000 to handle the increased caseload that will result from  
a change in the statute of limitation.
  
  COMMENTS  :  

1)The purpose of this bill is to afford individuals who suffer  
  from housing and employment discrimination due to sexual  
  orientation the same protections as those who suffer  
  discrimination due to race, religion, color, national origin,  
  ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital  
  status, sex, or age.

  AB 257 (Villaraigosa) of 1997, which was vetoed by Governor  
Wilson.

2)Supporters of this bill argue that that in the case of housing  
  discrimination, state law should reflect case law. They argue  
  that if the gay and lesbian community is covered by current  
  case law, then they deserve to have state law reflect this.  
  They also believe enforcement of discrimination should be  
  located within a single office, making it easier for victims  
  to identify the appropriate office to contact and seek  
  redress. Current practice can be confusing because victims do  
  not know whom to contact and may receive conflicting  








                                                          AB 1001
                                                          Page  3

  information by an office not specializing in that specific  
  type of discrimination.

3)Supporters of this bill argue that the differences between the  
  Labor Code and the FEHA result in unequal protection against  
  employment discrimination for gay, lesbian, and bisexual  
  individuals. The differences they cite include:

   a)   The Labor Code allows only 30 days to file a complaint.  
     The FEHA allows up to one year. Supporters argue that 30  
     days is not enough time in to identify and act on  
     discrimination, especially since the complainant may not  
     immediately realize that discrimination has occurred.

   b)   Extensive case law has established guidelines for the  
     FEHA, whereas little case law exists which interprets Labor  
     Code Section 1102.1.

   c)   FEH investigators are extensively trained in  
     discrimination cases. DIR investigators, on the other hand,  
     primarily handle whistleblower cases, wage disputes, and  
     health and safety complaints.     

4)Opponents of this bill argue that churches will be forced to  
  hire homosexual employees if this bill passes, although  
  nonprofit religious organizations are specifically exempt from  
  the FEHA.

5)Opponents also argue that this bill might be costly to  
  businesses. They believe small businesses, who might be  
  involved in increased litigation, would suffer a large  
  financial burden defending themselves. 


  Analysis Prepared by  :  Patrick O'Donnell  / H. & C.D. / (916)  
319-2085 


                                                      FN: 0001570