In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
A Crime to have your employees speak English!!!!!!
Dean Cascio
Member Posts: 2,301 ✭✭✭✭✭
California SB 242
BACKGROUND INFO ON SB 242
Assistant President pro Tempore CA State Senator Leland Yee (D) San Francisco & San Mateo Counties - author of
SB 242 http://dist08.casen.govoffice.com/
SB 242 will be heard in committee - CA State Assembly Judiciary Committee - STOP SB 242 in committee
SB 242 Civil rights: language restrictions makes language choice on the job a civil right and empowers employees to sue employers for violation of their language civil rights. SB 242 passed out of the CA State Senate Committee, along a party line vote. SB 242 will be heard, June 9, 2009, in the Judiciary CA State Assembly Committee.
* * *
California State Senator Leland Yee (D) is the author of CA Senate Bill SB 242 - info below.
Text from SB 242
SB 242 states 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 (unless the language is justified by a business necessity).
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.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_242_cfa_20090401_140053_sen_floor.html
CURRENT STATUS OF SB 242
SB 242 passed out of the CA State Senate Committee along a party line vote.
SB 242 will now be heard in the CA State Assembly Judiciary Committee.
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 242
AUTHOR(S) : Yee.
TOPIC : Civil rights: language restrictions.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Non-Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/11/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : To Com. on JUD.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM JUDICIARY
HEARING DATE : 06/09/2009 - JUDICIARY STATE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEEhttp://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=15
TITLE : An act to add Section 51.15 to the Civil Code, relating
to civil rights.
BILL ANALYSIS
& ;nbs p;
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 242|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 242
Author: Yee (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 3/31/09
AYES: Corbett, Florez, Leno
NOES: Harman, Walters
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.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment Housing Act
SB 242
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.
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 nothing in this bill shall be construed to limit application of any other remedies or rights provided under the law.
Background
In 2008, the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) announced a proposed policy that would have required players on the tour to be proficient in English by the end of 2009 and pass an oral evaluation of their English skills or face a membership suspension. The LPGA asserted that it was important for players to be able to interact with the American media and event sponsors even though many of the
SB 242
Page
tour's sponsors are international companies, and a number of the tournaments do not take place in the United States. Notably, no other professional sports team in the United
States has a similar requirement. The LPGA ultimately rescinded the proposal after the author of this bill, and other lawmakers, along with numerous civil rights organizations, raised objections to the policy.
Various statutes, such as FEHA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, and services provided by business establishments on the basis of specified personal characteristics such as sex, race, color, national origin, religion, and disability. Over time, these statutes evolved to include other characteristics such as medical condition and marital status and to generally reflect the state's public policy against discrimination in all forms.
Although FEHA currently contains provisions that prohibit employers from enacting policies that restrict the use of any language among their employees, there is nothing in current law that generally prohibits business establishments to place such restrictions on patrons or, in the case of the LPGA tour, participants/competitors. This
bill seeks to further enhance protections in the Unruh Civil Rights Act in order to prevent the implementation of language restriction policies in the future.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/1/09)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Anti-Defamation League
California Nurses Association
California State Conference of the NAACP
Fil-Am Star
Japanese-American Citizens League
Korean American Bar Association of Northern California
Korean American Coalition
San Francisco Japanese American Citizens League
SB 242
Page
4
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states:"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 242 will rightfully add language to
the list of protected classes within California's civil rights act."
RJG:mw 4/1/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
BACKGROUND INFO ON SB 242
Assistant President pro Tempore CA State Senator Leland Yee (D) San Francisco & San Mateo Counties - author of
SB 242 http://dist08.casen.govoffice.com/
SB 242 will be heard in committee - CA State Assembly Judiciary Committee - STOP SB 242 in committee
SB 242 Civil rights: language restrictions makes language choice on the job a civil right and empowers employees to sue employers for violation of their language civil rights. SB 242 passed out of the CA State Senate Committee, along a party line vote. SB 242 will be heard, June 9, 2009, in the Judiciary CA State Assembly Committee.
* * *
California State Senator Leland Yee (D) is the author of CA Senate Bill SB 242 - info below.
Text from SB 242
SB 242 states 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 (unless the language is justified by a business necessity).
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.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_242_cfa_20090401_140053_sen_floor.html
CURRENT STATUS OF SB 242
SB 242 passed out of the CA State Senate Committee along a party line vote.
SB 242 will now be heard in the CA State Assembly Judiciary Committee.
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 242
AUTHOR(S) : Yee.
TOPIC : Civil rights: language restrictions.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Non-Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/11/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : To Com. on JUD.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM JUDICIARY
HEARING DATE : 06/09/2009 - JUDICIARY STATE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEEhttp://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=15
TITLE : An act to add Section 51.15 to the Civil Code, relating
to civil rights.
BILL ANALYSIS
& ;nbs p;
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 242|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 242
Author: Yee (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 3/31/09
AYES: Corbett, Florez, Leno
NOES: Harman, Walters
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.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment Housing Act
SB 242
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.
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 nothing in this bill shall be construed to limit application of any other remedies or rights provided under the law.
Background
In 2008, the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) announced a proposed policy that would have required players on the tour to be proficient in English by the end of 2009 and pass an oral evaluation of their English skills or face a membership suspension. The LPGA asserted that it was important for players to be able to interact with the American media and event sponsors even though many of the
SB 242
Page
tour's sponsors are international companies, and a number of the tournaments do not take place in the United States. Notably, no other professional sports team in the United
States has a similar requirement. The LPGA ultimately rescinded the proposal after the author of this bill, and other lawmakers, along with numerous civil rights organizations, raised objections to the policy.
Various statutes, such as FEHA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, and services provided by business establishments on the basis of specified personal characteristics such as sex, race, color, national origin, religion, and disability. Over time, these statutes evolved to include other characteristics such as medical condition and marital status and to generally reflect the state's public policy against discrimination in all forms.
Although FEHA currently contains provisions that prohibit employers from enacting policies that restrict the use of any language among their employees, there is nothing in current law that generally prohibits business establishments to place such restrictions on patrons or, in the case of the LPGA tour, participants/competitors. This
bill seeks to further enhance protections in the Unruh Civil Rights Act in order to prevent the implementation of language restriction policies in the future.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/1/09)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Anti-Defamation League
California Nurses Association
California State Conference of the NAACP
Fil-Am Star
Japanese-American Citizens League
Korean American Bar Association of Northern California
Korean American Coalition
San Francisco Japanese American Citizens League
SB 242
Page
4
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states:"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 242 will rightfully add language to
the list of protected classes within California's civil rights act."
RJG:mw 4/1/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
Comments
Reason #2,654,783 why I won't live in California.
+100
What a crock of crapola....I would think if an employer is providing work to a person, that employer can require English be spoken in HIS workplace....the gov't needs to get the heck out of our lives!
They are going to do that on Wednesday.
Doug
Since the Klinton regime it is no longer a requirement. This policy was endorsed and promoted by the Bush administration and now continued with the Obama Nation.
And that their employers were forbidden to fire these people for refusing to speak english. And the employers were forced to hire Clingon speaking translators to communicate w/them.