SB 1100: Discrimination: driver’s license.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2024-09-28
Current Status:
Passed
(2024-09-28: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 877, Statutes of 2024.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits various forms of employment and housing discrimination, including various types of discrimination because of national origin, defined to include discrimination on the basis of possessing a drivers license granted pursuant to existing law that requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue an original drivers license to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the applicants presence in the United States is authorized under federal law, as specified. Existing law empowers the Civil Rights Department to investigate and prosecute complaints alleging unlawful practices.
This bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in various employment materials that an applicant must have a drivers license unless the employer reasonably expects the duties of the position to require driving and the employer reasonably believes that satisfying that job function using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer, as specified.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits various forms of employment and housing discrimination, including various types of discrimination because of national origin, defined to include discrimination on the basis of possessing a drivers license granted pursuant to existing law that requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue an original drivers license to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the applicants presence in the United States is authorized under federal law, as specified. Existing law empowers the Civil Rights Department to investigate and prosecute complaints alleging unlawful practices.
This bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in various employment materials that an applicant must have a drivers license unless the employer reasonably expects the duties of the position to require driving and the employer reasonably believes that satisfying that job function using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer, as specified.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits various forms of employment and housing discrimination, including various types of discrimination because of national origin, defined to include discrimination on the basis of possessing a drivers license granted pursuant to existing law that requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue an original drivers license to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the applicants presence in the United States is authorized under federal law, as specified. Existing law empowers the Civil Rights Department to investigate and prosecute complaints alleging unlawful practices.
This bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in various employment materials that an applicant must have a drivers license unless the employer reasonably expects the duties of the position to require driving and the employer reasonably believes that satisfying that job function using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer, as specified.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits various forms of employment and housing discrimination, including various types of discrimination because of national origin, defined to include discrimination on the basis of possessing a drivers license granted pursuant to existing law that requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue an original drivers license to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the applicants presence in the United States is authorized under federal law, as specified. Existing law empowers the Civil Rights Department to investigate and prosecute complaints alleging unlawful practices.
This bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in various employment materials that an applicant must have a drivers license unless the employer reasonably expects the duties of the position to require driving and the employer reasonably believes that satisfying that job function using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer, as specified. The bill would include lack of a drivers license or car ownership as a protected characteristic in the housing discrimination provisions described above.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits various forms of employment and housing discrimination, including various types of discrimination because of national origin, defined to include discrimination on the basis of possessing a drivers license granted pursuant to existing law that requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue an original drivers license to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the applicants presence in the United States is authorized under federal law, as specified. Existing law empowers the Civil Rights Department to investigate and prosecute complaints alleging unlawful practices.
This bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in various employment materials that an applicant must have a drivers license, to ask an applicant about whether the applicant has a drivers license, or to refuse to hire a person for lack of a drivers license, license unless the employer reasonably expects the duties of the position to require driving. driving and the employer reasonably believes that satisfying that job function using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer, as specified. The bill would include lack of a drivers license or car ownership as a protected characteristic in the housing discrimination provisions described above.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits various forms of employment and housing discrimination, including various types of discrimination because of national origin, defined to include discrimination on the basis of possessing a drivers license granted pursuant to existing law that requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue an original drivers license to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the applicants presence in the United States is authorized under federal law, as specified. Existing law empowers the Civil Rights Department to investigate and prosecute complaints alleging unlawful practices.
This bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in various employment materials that an applicant must have a drivers license, to ask an applicant about whether the applicant has a drivers license, or to refuse to hire a person for lack of a drivers license, unless the employer reasonably expects the duties of the position to require driving. The bill would include lack of a drivers license or car ownership as a protected characteristic in the housing discrimination provisions described above.
The Political Reform Act of 1974 defines city to include both general law and charter cities.This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to this provision.The Political Reform Act of 1974 defines city to include both general law and charter cities.
This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to this provision.
It is an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, or, except where based upon applicable security regulations established by the United States or the State of California:
(a)For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
(1)This part does not prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee with a physical or mental disability, or subject an employer to any legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the discharge of an employee with a physical or mental disability, if the employee, because of a physical or mental disability, is unable to perform the employees essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employees health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations.
(2)This part does not prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee who, because of the employees medical condition, is unable to perform the employees essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employees health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations. Nothing in this part shall subject an employer to any legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the discharge of an employee who, because of the employees medical condition, is unable to perform the employees essential duties, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employees health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations.
(3)Nothing in this part relating to discrimination on account of marital status shall do either of the following:
(A)Affect the right of an employer to reasonably regulate, for reasons of supervision, safety, security, or morale, the working of spouses in the same department, division, or facility, consistent with the rules and regulations adopted by the council.
(B)Prohibit bona fide health plans from providing additional or greater benefits to employees with dependents than to those employees without or with fewer dependents.
(4)Nothing in this part relating to discrimination on account of sex shall affect the right of an employer to use veteran status as a factor in employee selection or to give special consideration to Vietnam-era veterans.
(5)(A)This part does not prohibit an employer from refusing to employ an individual because of the individuals age if the law compels or provides for that refusal. Promotions within the existing staff, hiring or promotion on the basis of experience and training, rehiring on the basis of seniority and prior service with the employer, or hiring under an established recruiting program from high schools, colleges, universities, or trade schools do not, in and of themselves, constitute unlawful employment practices.
(B)The provisions of this part relating to discrimination on the basis of age do not prohibit an employer from providing health benefits or health care reimbursement plans to retired persons that are altered, reduced, or eliminated when the person becomes eligible for Medicare health benefits. This subparagraph applies to all retiree health benefit plans and contractual provisions or practices concerning retiree health benefits and health care reimbursement plans in effect on or after January 1, 2011.
(b)For a labor organization, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status of any person, to exclude, expel, or restrict from its membership the person, or to provide only second-class or segregated membership or to discriminate against any person because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status of the person in the election of officers of the labor organization or in the selection of the labor organizations staff or to discriminate in any way against any of its members or against any employer or against any person employed by an employer.
(c)For any person to discriminate against any person in the selection, termination, training, or other terms or treatment of that person in any apprenticeship training program, any other training program leading to employment, an unpaid internship, or another limited duration program to provide unpaid work experience for that person because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status of the person discriminated against.
(d)For any employer or employment agency to print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated any publication, or to make any nonjob-related inquiry of an employee or applicant, either verbal or through use of an application form, that expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status, or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination. This part does not prohibit an employer or employment agency from inquiring into the age of an applicant, or from specifying age limitations, if the law compels or provides for that action.
(e)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2) or (3), for any employer or employment agency to require any medical or psychological examination of an applicant, to make any medical or psychological inquiry of an applicant, to make any inquiry whether an applicant has a mental disability or physical disability or medical condition, or to make any inquiry regarding the nature or severity of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an employer or employment agency may inquire into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions and may respond to an applicants request for reasonable accommodation.
(3)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an employer or employment agency may require a medical or psychological examination or make a medical or psychological inquiry of a job applicant after an employment offer has been made but prior to the commencement of employment duties, provided that the examination or inquiry is job related and consistent with business necessity and that all entering employees in the same job classification are subject to the same examination or inquiry.
(f)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), for any employer or employment agency to require any medical or psychological examination of an employee, to make any medical or psychological inquiry of an employee, to make any inquiry whether an employee has a mental disability, physical disability, or medical condition, or to make any inquiry regarding the nature or severity of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an employer or employment agency may require any examinations or inquiries that it can show to be job related and consistent with business necessity. An employer or employment agency may conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, which are part of an employee health program available to employees at that worksite.
(g)For any employer, labor organization, or employment agency to harass, discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has made a report pursuant to Section 11161.8 of the Penal Code that prohibits retaliation against hospital employees who report suspected patient abuse by health facilities or community care facilities.
(h)For any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.
(i)For any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this part, or to attempt to do so.
(j)(1)For an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program or any training program leading to employment, or any other person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status, to harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract. Harassment of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to harassment of employees, applicants, unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace, if the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employers control and any other legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment.
(2)The provisions of this subdivision are declaratory of existing law, except for the new duties imposed on employers with regard to harassment.
(3)An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee, regardless of whether the employer or covered entity knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
(4)(A)For purposes of this subdivision only, employer means any person regularly employing one or more persons or regularly receiving the services of one or more persons providing services pursuant to a contract, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, the state, or any political or civil subdivision of the state, and cities. The definition of employer in subdivision (d) of Section 12926 applies to all provisions of this section other than this subdivision.
(B)Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for purposes of this subdivision, employer does not include a religious association or corporation not organized for private profit, except as provided in Section 12926.2.
(C)For purposes of this subdivision, harassment because of sex includes sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Sexually harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire.
(5)For purposes of this subdivision, a person providing services pursuant to a contract means a person who meets all of the following criteria:
(A)The person has the right to control the performance of the contract for services and discretion as to the manner of performance.
(B)The person is customarily engaged in an independently established business.
(C)The person has control over the time and place the work is performed, supplies the tools and instruments used in the work, and performs work that requires a particular skill not ordinarily used in the course of the employers work.
(k)For an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program, or any training program leading to employment, to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.
(l)(1)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to refuse to hire or employ a person or to refuse to select a person for a training program leading to employment or to bar or to discharge a person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of a conflict between the persons religious belief or observance and any employment requirement, unless the employer or other entity covered by this part demonstrates that it has explored any available reasonable alternative means of accommodating the religious belief or observance, including the possibilities of excusing the person from those duties that conflict with the persons religious belief or observance or permitting those duties to be performed at another time or by another person, but is unable to reasonably accommodate the religious belief or observance without undue hardship, as defined in subdivision (u) of Section 12926, on the conduct of the business of the employer or other entity covered by this part. Religious belief or observance, as used in this section, includes, but is not limited to, observance of a Sabbath or other religious holy day or days, reasonable time necessary for travel prior and subsequent to a religious observance, and religious dress practice and religious grooming practice as described in subdivision (q) of Section 12926. This subdivision shall also apply to an apprenticeship training program, an unpaid internship, and any other program to provide unpaid experience for a person in the workplace or industry.
(2)An accommodation of an individuals religious dress practice or religious grooming practice is not reasonable if the accommodation requires segregation of the individual from other employees or the public.
(3)An accommodation is not required under this subdivision if it would result in a violation of this part or any other law prohibiting discrimination or protecting civil rights, including subdivision (b) of Section 51 of the Civil Code and Section 11135 of this code.
(4)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to, in addition to the employee protections provided pursuant to subdivision (h), retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for requesting accommodation under this subdivision, regardless of whether the request was granted.
(m)(1)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee. Nothing in this subdivision or in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) shall be construed to require an accommodation that is demonstrated by the employer or other covered entity to produce undue hardship, as defined in subdivision (u) of Section 12926, to its operation.
(2)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to, in addition to the employee protections provided pursuant to subdivision (h), retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for requesting accommodation under this subdivision, regardless of whether the request was granted.
(n)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.
(o)For an employer or other entity covered by this part, to subject, directly or indirectly, any employee, applicant, or other person to a test for the presence of a genetic characteristic.
(p)For an employer to require, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or a benefit of employment, the disclosure of information relating to an applicants or employees reproductive health decisionmaking.
(q)(1)For an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a drivers license unless both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(A)The employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position.
(B)The employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function described in paragraph (1) using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, alternative form of transportation includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(A)Using a ride hailing service.
(B)Using a taxi.
(C)Carpooling.
(D)Bicycling.
(E)Walking.
(r)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as preventing the ability of employers to identify members of the military or veterans for purposes of awarding a veterans preference as permitted by law.
It is an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, or, except where based upon applicable security regulations established by the United States or the State of California:
(a)For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
(1)This part does not prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee with a physical or mental disability, or subject an employer to any legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the discharge of an employee with a physical or mental disability, if the employee, because of a physical or mental disability, is unable to perform the employees essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employees health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations.
(2)This part does not prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee who, because of the employees medical condition, is unable to perform the employees essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employees health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations. Nothing in this part shall subject an employer to any legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the discharge of an employee who, because of the employees medical condition, is unable to perform the employees essential duties, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employees health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations.
(3)Nothing in this part relating to discrimination on account of marital status shall do either of the following:
(A)Affect the right of an employer to reasonably regulate, for reasons of supervision, safety, security, or morale, the working of spouses in the same department, division, or facility, consistent with the rules and regulations adopted by the council.
(B)Prohibit bona fide health plans from providing additional or greater benefits to employees with dependents than to those employees without or with fewer dependents.
(4)Nothing in this part relating to discrimination on account of sex shall affect the right of an employer to use veteran status as a factor in employee selection or to give special consideration to Vietnam-era veterans.
(5)(A)This part does not prohibit an employer from refusing to employ an individual because of the individuals age if the law compels or provides for that refusal. Promotions within the existing staff, hiring or promotion on the basis of experience and training, rehiring on the basis of seniority and prior service with the employer, or hiring under an established recruiting program from high schools, colleges, universities, or trade schools do not, in and of themselves, constitute unlawful employment practices.
(B)The provisions of this part relating to discrimination on the basis of age do not prohibit an employer from providing health benefits or health care reimbursement plans to retired persons that are altered, reduced, or eliminated when the person becomes eligible for Medicare health benefits. This subparagraph applies to all retiree health benefit plans and contractual provisions or practices concerning retiree health benefits and health care reimbursement plans in effect on or after January 1, 2011.
(b)For a labor organization, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status of any person, to exclude, expel, or restrict from its membership the person, or to provide only second-class or segregated membership or to discriminate against any person because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status of the person in the election of officers of the labor organization or in the selection of the labor organizations staff or to discriminate in any way against any of its members or against any employer or against any person employed by an employer.
(c)For any person to discriminate against any person in the selection, termination, training, or other terms or treatment of that person in any apprenticeship training program, any other training program leading to employment, an unpaid internship, or another limited duration program to provide unpaid work experience for that person because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status of the person discriminated against.
(d)For any employer or employment agency to print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated any publication, or to make any nonjob-related inquiry of an employee or applicant, either verbal or through use of an application form, that expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status, or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination. This part does not prohibit an employer or employment agency from inquiring into the age of an applicant, or from specifying age limitations, if the law compels or provides for that action.
(e)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2) or (3), for any employer or employment agency to require any medical or psychological examination of an applicant, to make any medical or psychological inquiry of an applicant, to make any inquiry whether an applicant has a mental disability or physical disability or medical condition, or to make any inquiry regarding the nature or severity of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an employer or employment agency may inquire into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions and may respond to an applicants request for reasonable accommodation.
(3)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an employer or employment agency may require a medical or psychological examination or make a medical or psychological inquiry of a job applicant after an employment offer has been made but prior to the commencement of employment duties, provided that the examination or inquiry is job related and consistent with business necessity and that all entering employees in the same job classification are subject to the same examination or inquiry.
(f)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), for any employer or employment agency to require any medical or psychological examination of an employee, to make any medical or psychological inquiry of an employee, to make any inquiry whether an employee has a mental disability, physical disability, or medical condition, or to make any inquiry regarding the nature or severity of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an employer or employment agency may require any examinations or inquiries that it can show to be job related and consistent with business necessity. An employer or employment agency may conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, which are part of an employee health program available to employees at that worksite.
(g)For any employer, labor organization, or employment agency to harass, discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has made a report pursuant to Section 11161.8 of the Penal Code that prohibits retaliation against hospital employees who report suspected patient abuse by health facilities or community care facilities.
(h)For any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.
(i)For any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this part, or to attempt to do so.
(j)(1)For an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program or any training program leading to employment, or any other person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status, to harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract. Harassment of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to harassment of employees, applicants, unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace, if the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employers control and any other legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment.
(2)The provisions of this subdivision are declaratory of existing law, except for the new duties imposed on employers with regard to harassment.
(3)An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee, regardless of whether the employer or covered entity knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
(4)(A)For purposes of this subdivision only, employer means any person regularly employing one or more persons or regularly receiving the services of one or more persons providing services pursuant to a contract, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, the state, or any political or civil subdivision of the state, and cities. The definition of employer in subdivision (d) of Section 12926 applies to all provisions of this section other than this subdivision.
(B)Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for purposes of this subdivision, employer does not include a religious association or corporation not organized for private profit, except as provided in Section 12926.2.
(C)For purposes of this subdivision, harassment because of sex includes sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Sexually harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire.
(5)For purposes of this subdivision, a person providing services pursuant to a contract means a person who meets all of the following criteria:
(A)The person has the right to control the performance of the contract for services and discretion as to the manner of performance.
(B)The person is customarily engaged in an independently established business.
(C)The person has control over the time and place the work is performed, supplies the tools and instruments used in the work, and performs work that requires a particular skill not ordinarily used in the course of the employers work.
(k)For an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program, or any training program leading to employment, to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.
(l)(1)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to refuse to hire or employ a person or to refuse to select a person for a training program leading to employment or to bar or to discharge a person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of a conflict between the persons religious belief or observance and any employment requirement, unless the employer or other entity covered by this part demonstrates that it has explored any available reasonable alternative means of accommodating the religious belief or observance, including the possibilities of excusing the person from those duties that conflict with the persons religious belief or observance or permitting those duties to be performed at another time or by another person, but is unable to reasonably accommodate the religious belief or observance without undue hardship, as defined in subdivision (u) of Section 12926, on the conduct of the business of the employer or other entity covered by this part. Religious belief or observance, as used in this section, includes, but is not limited to, observance of a Sabbath or other religious holy day or days, reasonable time necessary for travel prior and subsequent to a religious observance, and religious dress practice and religious grooming practice as described in subdivision (q) of Section 12926. This subdivision shall also apply to an apprenticeship training program, an unpaid internship, and any other program to provide unpaid experience for a person in the workplace or industry.
(2)An accommodation of an individuals religious dress practice or religious grooming practice is not reasonable if the accommodation requires segregation of the individual from other employees or the public.
(3)An accommodation is not required under this subdivision if it would result in a violation of this part or any other law prohibiting discrimination or protecting civil rights, including subdivision (b) of Section 51 of the Civil Code and Section 11135 of this code.
(4)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to, in addition to the employee protections provided pursuant to subdivision (h), retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for requesting accommodation under this subdivision, regardless of whether the request was granted.
(m)(1)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee. Nothing in this subdivision or in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) shall be construed to require an accommodation that is demonstrated by the employer or other covered entity to produce undue hardship, as defined in subdivision (u) of Section 12926, to its operation.
(2)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to, in addition to the employee protections provided pursuant to subdivision (h), retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for requesting accommodation under this subdivision, regardless of whether the request was granted.
(n)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.
(o)For an employer or other entity covered by this part, to subject, directly or indirectly, any employee, applicant, or other person to a test for the presence of a genetic characteristic.
(p)For an employer to require, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or a benefit of employment, the disclosure of information relating to an applicants or employees reproductive health decisionmaking.
(q)(1)For an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a drivers license unless both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(A)The employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position.
(B)The employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function described in paragraph (1) using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, alternative form of transportation includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(A)Using a ride hailing service.
(B)Using a taxi.
(C)Carpooling.
(D)Bicycling.
(E)Walking.
(r)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as preventing the ability of employers to identify members of the military or veterans for purposes of awarding a veterans preference as permitted by law.
It is an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, or, except where based upon applicable security regulations established by the United States or the State of California:
(a)For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
(1)This part does not prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee with a physical or mental disability, or subject an employer to any legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the discharge of an employee with a physical or mental disability, if the employee, because of a physical or mental disability, is unable to perform the employees essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employees health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations.
(2)This part does not prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee who, because of the employees medical condition, is unable to perform the employees essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employees health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations. Nothing in this part shall subject an employer to any legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the discharge of an employee who, because of the employees medical condition, is unable to perform the employees essential duties, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employees health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations.
(3)Nothing in this part relating to discrimination on account of marital status shall do either of the following:
(A)Affect the right of an employer to reasonably regulate, for reasons of supervision, safety, security, or morale, the working of spouses in the same department, division, or facility, consistent with the rules and regulations adopted by the council.
(B)Prohibit bona fide health plans from providing additional or greater benefits to employees with dependents than to those employees without or with fewer dependents.
(4)Nothing in this part relating to discrimination on account of sex shall affect the right of an employer to use veteran status as a factor in employee selection or to give special consideration to Vietnam-era veterans.
(5)(A)This part does not prohibit an employer from refusing to employ an individual because of the individuals age if the law compels or provides for that refusal. Promotions within the existing staff, hiring or promotion on the basis of experience and training, rehiring on the basis of seniority and prior service with the employer, or hiring under an established recruiting program from high schools, colleges, universities, or trade schools do not, in and of themselves, constitute unlawful employment practices.
(B)The provisions of this part relating to discrimination on the basis of age do not prohibit an employer from providing health benefits or health care reimbursement plans to retired persons that are altered, reduced, or eliminated when the person becomes eligible for Medicare health benefits. This subparagraph applies to all retiree health benefit plans and contractual provisions or practices concerning retiree health benefits and health care reimbursement plans in effect on or after January 1, 2011.
(b)For a labor organization, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status of any person, to exclude, expel, or restrict from its membership the person, or to provide only second-class or segregated membership or to discriminate against any person because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status of the person in the election of officers of the labor organization or in the selection of the labor organizations staff or to discriminate in any way against any of its members or against any employer or against any person employed by an employer.
(c)For any person to discriminate against any person in the selection, termination, training, or other terms or treatment of that person in any apprenticeship training program, any other training program leading to employment, an unpaid internship, or another limited duration program to provide unpaid work experience for that person because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status of the person discriminated against.
(d)For any employer or employment agency to print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated any publication, or to make any nonjob-related inquiry of an employee or applicant, either verbal or through use of an application form, that expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status, or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination. This part does not prohibit an employer or employment agency from inquiring into the age of an applicant, or from specifying age limitations, if the law compels or provides for that action.
(e)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2) or (3), for any employer or employment agency to require any medical or psychological examination of an applicant, to make any medical or psychological inquiry of an applicant, to make any inquiry whether an applicant has a mental disability or physical disability or medical condition, or to make any inquiry regarding the nature or severity of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an employer or employment agency may inquire into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions and may respond to an applicants request for reasonable accommodation.
(3)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an employer or employment agency may require a medical or psychological examination or make a medical or psychological inquiry of a job applicant after an employment offer has been made but prior to the commencement of employment duties, provided that the examination or inquiry is job related and consistent with business necessity and that all entering employees in the same job classification are subject to the same examination or inquiry.
(f)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), for any employer or employment agency to require any medical or psychological examination of an employee, to make any medical or psychological inquiry of an employee, to make any inquiry whether an employee has a mental disability, physical disability, or medical condition, or to make any inquiry regarding the nature or severity of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an employer or employment agency may require any examinations or inquiries that it can show to be job related and consistent with business necessity. An employer or employment agency may conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, which are part of an employee health program available to employees at that worksite.
(g)For any employer, labor organization, or employment agency to harass, discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has made a report pursuant to Section 11161.8 of the Penal Code that prohibits retaliation against hospital employees who report suspected patient abuse by health facilities or community care facilities.
(h)For any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.
(i)For any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this part, or to attempt to do so.
(j)(1)For an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program or any training program leading to employment, or any other person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status, to harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract. Harassment of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to harassment of employees, applicants, unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace, if the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employers control and any other legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment.
(2)The provisions of this subdivision are declaratory of existing law, except for the new duties imposed on employers with regard to harassment.
(3)An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee, regardless of whether the employer or covered entity knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
(4)(A)For purposes of this subdivision only, employer means any person regularly employing one or more persons or regularly receiving the services of one or more persons providing services pursuant to a contract, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, the state, or any political or civil subdivision of the state, and cities. The definition of employer in subdivision (d) of Section 12926 applies to all provisions of this section other than this subdivision.
(B)Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for purposes of this subdivision, employer does not include a religious association or corporation not organized for private profit, except as provided in Section 12926.2.
(C)For purposes of this subdivision, harassment because of sex includes sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Sexually harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire.
(5)For purposes of this subdivision, a person providing services pursuant to a contract means a person who meets all of the following criteria:
(A)The person has the right to control the performance of the contract for services and discretion as to the manner of performance.
(B)The person is customarily engaged in an independently established business.
(C)The person has control over the time and place the work is performed, supplies the tools and instruments used in the work, and performs work that requires a particular skill not ordinarily used in the course of the employers work.
(k)For an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program, or any training program leading to employment, to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.
(l)(1)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to refuse to hire or employ a person or to refuse to select a person for a training program leading to employment or to bar or to discharge a person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of a conflict between the persons religious belief or observance and any employment requirement, unless the employer or other entity covered by this part demonstrates that it has explored any available reasonable alternative means of accommodating the religious belief or observance, including the possibilities of excusing the person from those duties that conflict with the persons religious belief or observance or permitting those duties to be performed at another time or by another person, but is unable to reasonably accommodate the religious belief or observance without undue hardship, as defined in subdivision (u) of Section 12926, on the conduct of the business of the employer or other entity covered by this part. Religious belief or observance, as used in this section, includes, but is not limited to, observance of a Sabbath or other religious holy day or days, reasonable time necessary for travel prior and subsequent to a religious observance, and religious dress practice and religious grooming practice as described in subdivision (q) of Section 12926. This subdivision shall also apply to an apprenticeship training program, an unpaid internship, and any other program to provide unpaid experience for a person in the workplace or industry.
(2)An accommodation of an individuals religious dress practice or religious grooming practice is not reasonable if the accommodation requires segregation of the individual from other employees or the public.
(3)An accommodation is not required under this subdivision if it would result in a violation of this part or any other law prohibiting discrimination or protecting civil rights, including subdivision (b) of Section 51 of the Civil Code and Section 11135 of this code.
(4)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to, in addition to the employee protections provided pursuant to subdivision (h), retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for requesting accommodation under this subdivision, regardless of whether the request was granted.
(m)(1)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee. Nothing in this subdivision or in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) shall be construed to require an accommodation that is demonstrated by the employer or other covered entity to produce undue hardship, as defined in subdivision (u) of Section 12926, to its operation.
(2)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to, in addition to the employee protections provided pursuant to subdivision (h), retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a person for requesting accommodation under this subdivision, regardless of whether the request was granted.
(n)For an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.
(o)For an employer or other entity covered by this part, to subject, directly or indirectly, any employee, applicant, or other person to a test for the presence of a genetic characteristic.
(p)For an employer to require, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or a benefit of employment, the disclosure of information relating to an applicants or employees reproductive health decisionmaking.
(q)(1)For an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a drivers license unless both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(A)The employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position.
(B)The employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function described in paragraph (1) using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, alternative form of transportation includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(A)Using a ride hailing service.
(B)Using a taxi.
(C)Carpooling.
(D)Bicycling.
(E)Walking.
(q)(r)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as preventing the ability of employers to identify members of the military or veterans for purposes of awarding a veterans preference as permitted by law.
SECTION 1.Section 12945.8 is added to the Government Code, to read:12945.8.(a)It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a drivers license unless both of the following conditions are satisfied:(1)The employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position.(2)The employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function described in paragraph (1) using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.(b)For purposes of this section, alternative form of transportation includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:(1)Using a ride hailing service.(2)Using a taxi.(3)Carpooling.(4)Bicycling.(5)Walking.(a)It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a drivers license unless both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1)The employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position.
(2)The employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function described in paragraph (1) using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
(b)For purposes of this section, alternative form of transportation includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1)Using a ride hailing service.
(2)Using a taxi.
(3)Carpooling.
(4)Bicycling.
(5)Walking.
SEC. 2.Section 12955 of the Government Code is amended to read:12955.It shall be unlawful:(a)For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against or harass any person because of the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information of that person.(b)For the owner of any housing accommodation to make or to cause to be made any written or oral inquiry concerning the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information of any person seeking to purchase, rent, or lease any housing accommodation.(c)For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or discrimination.(d)For any person subject to the provisions of Section 51 of the Civil Code, as that section applies to housing accommodations, to discriminate against any person on the basis of sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, familial status, marital status, disability, genetic information, source of income, veteran or military status, or on any other basis prohibited by that section. Selection preferences based on age, imposed in connection with a federally approved housing program, do not constitute age discrimination in housing.(e)For any person, bank, mortgage company, or other financial institution that provides financial assistance for the purchase, refinance, organization, or construction of any housing accommodation to discriminate against any person or group of persons because of the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information in the terms, conditions, or privileges relating to the obtaining or use of that financial assistance.(f)For any owner of housing accommodations to harass, evict, or otherwise discriminate against any person in the sale or rental of housing accommodations when the owners dominant purpose is retaliation against a person who has opposed practices unlawful under this section, informed law enforcement agencies of practices believed unlawful under this section, has testified or assisted in any proceeding under this part, or has aided or encouraged a person to exercise or enjoy the rights secured by this part. Nothing herein is intended to cause or permit the delay of an unlawful detainer action.(g)For any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts or practices declared unlawful in this section, or to attempt to do so.(h)For any person, for profit, to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, disability, genetic information, source of income, familial status, veteran or military status, or national origin.(i)(1)For any person or other organization or entity whose business involves real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available a transaction, or in the terms and conditions of a transaction, because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, source of income, familial status, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information.(2)For any person or other entity whose business includes performing appraisals, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 11302 of the Business and Professions Code, of residential real property to discriminate against any person in making available those services, or in the performance of those services, because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, source of income, disability, genetic information, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or national origin.(j)To deny a person access to, or membership or participation in, a multiple listing service, real estate brokerage organization, or other service because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, disability, genetic information, familial status, source of income, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or national origin.(k)To otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling based on discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, source of income, disability, genetic information, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or national origin.(l)To discriminate through public or private land use practices, decisions, and authorizations because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, genetic information, national origin, source of income, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or ancestry. Discrimination includes, but is not limited to, restrictive covenants, zoning laws, denials of use permits, and other actions authorized under the Planning and Zoning Law (Title 7 (commencing with Section 65000)), that make housing opportunities unavailable.Discrimination under this subdivision also includes the existence of a restrictive covenant, regardless of whether accompanied by a statement that the restrictive covenant is repealed or void.(m)As used in this section, race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information, includes a perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.(n)To use a financial or income standard in the rental of housing that fails to account for the aggregate income of persons residing together or proposing to reside together on the same basis as the aggregate income of married persons residing together or proposing to reside together.(o)(1)In instances in which there is a government rent subsidy, to do either of the following:(A)Use a financial or income standard in assessing eligibility for the rental of housing that is not based on the portion of the rent to be paid by the tenant.(B)(i)Use a persons credit history as part of the application process for a rental accommodation without offering the applicant the option, at the applicants discretion, of providing lawful, verifiable alternative evidence of the applicants reasonable ability to pay the portion of the rent to be paid by the tenant, including, but not limited to, government benefit payments, pay records, and bank statements.(ii)If the applicant elects to provide lawful, verifiable alternative evidence of the applicants reasonable ability to pay pursuant to clause (i), the housing provider shall do both of the following:(I)Provide the applicant reasonable time to respond with that alternative evidence.(II)Reasonably consider that alternative evidence in lieu of the persons credit history in determining whether to offer the rental accommodation to the applicant.(2)This subdivision does not limit the ability of the owner of a housing accommodation to request information or documentation to verify employment, to request landlord references, or to verify the identity of a person.(p)(1)For the purposes of this section, source of income means lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant, or to a representative of a tenant, or paid to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state, or local public assistance, and federal, state, or local housing subsidies, including, but not limited to, federal housing assistance vouchers issued under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f). Source of income includes a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing voucher. For the purposes of this section, a housing owner or landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant unless the source of income is a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing voucher.(2)For the purposes of this section, it shall not constitute discrimination based on source of income to make a written or oral inquiry concerning the level or source of income.(a)Subject to subdivision (b), it It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to do any of the following: include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a drivers license unless both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1)Include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that the applicant must have a drivers license.(2)Ask an applicant if the applicant has a drivers license.(3)Refuse to hire or employ a person for a lack of a drivers license.(b)An action described in subdivision (a) is not an unlawful employment practice if the employer reasonably expects the duties of the position to require driving.(1)The employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position.
(2)The employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function described in paragraph (1) using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
(b)For purposes of this section, alternative form of transportation includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1)Using a ride hailing service.
(2)Using a taxi.
(3)Carpooling.
(4)Bicycling.
(5)Walking.
SEC. 2.Section 12955 of the Government Code is amended to read:12955.It shall be unlawful:
(a)For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against or harass any person because of the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information of that person.
(b)For the owner of any housing accommodation to make or to cause to be made any written or oral inquiry concerning the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information of any person seeking to purchase, rent, or lease any housing accommodation.
(c)For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or discrimination.
(d)For any person subject to the provisions of Section 51 of the Civil Code, as that section applies to housing accommodations, to discriminate against any person on the basis of sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, familial status, marital status, disability, genetic information, source of income, veteran or military status, or on any other basis prohibited by that section. Selection preferences based on age, imposed in connection with a federally approved housing program, do not constitute age discrimination in housing.
(e)For any person, bank, mortgage company, or other financial institution that provides financial assistance for the purchase, refinance, organization, or construction of any housing accommodation to discriminate against any person or group of persons because of the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information in the terms, conditions, or privileges relating to the obtaining or use of that financial assistance.
(f)For any owner of housing accommodations to harass, evict, or otherwise discriminate against any person in the sale or rental of housing accommodations when the owners dominant purpose is retaliation against a person who has opposed practices unlawful under this section, informed law enforcement agencies of practices believed unlawful under this section, has testified or assisted in any proceeding under this part, or has aided or encouraged a person to exercise or enjoy the rights secured by this part. Nothing herein is intended to cause or permit the delay of an unlawful detainer action.
(g)For any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts or practices declared unlawful in this section, or to attempt to do so.
(h)For any person, for profit, to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, disability, genetic information, source of income, familial status, veteran or military status, or national origin.
(i)(1)For any person or other organization or entity whose business involves real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available a transaction, or in the terms and conditions of a transaction, because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, source of income, familial status, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information.
(2)For any person or other entity whose business includes performing appraisals, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 11302 of the Business and Professions Code, of residential real property to discriminate against any person in making available those services, or in the performance of those services, because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, source of income, disability, genetic information, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or national origin.
(j)To deny a person access to, or membership or participation in, a multiple listing service, real estate brokerage organization, or other service because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, disability, genetic information, familial status, source of income, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or national origin.
(k)To otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling based on discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, source of income, disability, genetic information, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or national origin.
(l)To discriminate through public or private land use practices, decisions, and authorizations because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, genetic information, national origin, source of income, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or ancestry. Discrimination includes, but is not limited to, restrictive covenants, zoning laws, denials of use permits, and other actions authorized under the Planning and Zoning Law (Title 7 (commencing with Section 65000)), that make housing opportunities unavailable.
Discrimination under this subdivision also includes the existence of a restrictive covenant, regardless of whether accompanied by a statement that the restrictive covenant is repealed or void.
(m)As used in this section, race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information, includes a perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.
(n)To use a financial or income standard in the rental of housing that fails to account for the aggregate income of persons residing together or proposing to reside together on the same basis as the aggregate income of married persons residing together or proposing to reside together.
(o)(1)In instances in which there is a government rent subsidy, to do either of the following:
(A)Use a financial or income standard in assessing eligibility for the rental of housing that is not based on the portion of the rent to be paid by the tenant.
(B)(i)Use a persons credit history as part of the application process for a rental accommodation without offering the applicant the option, at the applicants discretion, of providing lawful, verifiable alternative evidence of the applicants reasonable ability to pay the portion of the rent to be paid by the tenant, including, but not limited to, government benefit payments, pay records, and bank statements.
(ii)If the applicant elects to provide lawful, verifiable alternative evidence of the applicants reasonable ability to pay pursuant to clause (i), the housing provider shall do both of the following:
(I)Provide the applicant reasonable time to respond with that alternative evidence.
(II)Reasonably consider that alternative evidence in lieu of the persons credit history in determining whether to offer the rental accommodation to the applicant.
(2)This subdivision does not limit the ability of the owner of a housing accommodation to request information or documentation to verify employment, to request landlord references, or to verify the identity of a person.
(p)(1)For the purposes of this section, source of income means lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant, or to a representative of a tenant, or paid to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state, or local public assistance, and federal, state, or local housing subsidies, including, but not limited to, federal housing assistance vouchers issued under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f). Source of income includes a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing voucher. For the purposes of this section, a housing owner or landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant unless the source of income is a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing voucher.
(2)For the purposes of this section, it shall not constitute discrimination based on source of income to make a written or oral inquiry concerning the level or source of income.
(a)Subject to subdivision (b), it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to do any of the following:
(1)Include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that the applicant must have a drivers license.
(2)Ask an applicant if the applicant has a drivers license.
(3)Refuse to hire or employ a person for a lack of a drivers license.
(b)An action described in subdivision (a) is not an unlawful employment practice if the employer reasonably expects the duties of the position to require driving.
SEC. 2.Section 12955 of the Government Code is amended to read:12955.It shall be unlawful:
(a)For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against or harass any person because of the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information of that person.
(b)For the owner of any housing accommodation to make or to cause to be made any written or oral inquiry concerning the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information of any person seeking to purchase, rent, or lease any housing accommodation.
(c)For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or discrimination.
(d)For any person subject to the provisions of Section 51 of the Civil Code, as that section applies to housing accommodations, to discriminate against any person on the basis of sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, familial status, marital status, disability, genetic information, source of income, veteran or military status, or on any other basis prohibited by that section. Selection preferences based on age, imposed in connection with a federally approved housing program, do not constitute age discrimination in housing.
(e)For any person, bank, mortgage company, or other financial institution that provides financial assistance for the purchase, refinance, organization, or construction of any housing accommodation to discriminate against any person or group of persons because of the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information in the terms, conditions, or privileges relating to the obtaining or use of that financial assistance.
(f)For any owner of housing accommodations to harass, evict, or otherwise discriminate against any person in the sale or rental of housing accommodations when the owners dominant purpose is retaliation against a person who has opposed practices unlawful under this section, informed law enforcement agencies of practices believed unlawful under this section, has testified or assisted in any proceeding under this part, or has aided or encouraged a person to exercise or enjoy the rights secured by this part. Nothing herein is intended to cause or permit the delay of an unlawful detainer action.
(g)For any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts or practices declared unlawful in this section, or to attempt to do so.
(h)For any person, for profit, to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, disability, genetic information, source of income, familial status, veteran or military status, or national origin.
(i)(1)For any person or other organization or entity whose business involves real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available a transaction, or in the terms and conditions of a transaction, because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, source of income, familial status, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information.
(2)For any person or other entity whose business includes performing appraisals, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 11302 of the Business and Professions Code, of residential real property to discriminate against any person in making available those services, or in the performance of those services, because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, source of income, disability, genetic information, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or national origin.
(j)To deny a person access to, or membership or participation in, a multiple listing service, real estate brokerage organization, or other service because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, disability, genetic information, familial status, source of income, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or national origin.
(k)To otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling based on discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, source of income, disability, genetic information, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or national origin.
(l)To discriminate through public or private land use practices, decisions, and authorizations because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, genetic information, national origin, source of income, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or ancestry. Discrimination includes, but is not limited to, restrictive covenants, zoning laws, denials of use permits, and other actions authorized under the Planning and Zoning Law (Title 7 (commencing with Section 65000)), that make housing opportunities unavailable.
Discrimination under this subdivision also includes the existence of a restrictive covenant, regardless of whether accompanied by a statement that the restrictive covenant is repealed or void.
(m)As used in this section, race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, lack of a drivers license or car ownership, or genetic information, includes a perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.
(n)To use a financial or income standard in the rental of housing that fails to account for the aggregate income of persons residing together or proposing to reside together on the same basis as the aggregate income of married persons residing together or proposing to reside together.
(o)(1)In instances in which there is a government rent subsidy, to do either of the following:
(A)Use a financial or income standard in assessing eligibility for the rental of housing that is not based on the portion of the rent to be paid by the tenant.
(B)(i)Use a persons credit history as part of the application process for a rental accommodation without offering the applicant the option, at the applicants discretion, of providing lawful, verifiable alternative evidence of the applicants reasonable ability to pay the portion of the rent to be paid by the tenant, including, but not limited to, government benefit payments, pay records, and bank statements.
(ii)If the applicant elects to provide lawful, verifiable alternative evidence of the applicants reasonable ability to pay pursuant to clause (i), the housing provider shall do both of the following:
(I)Provide the applicant reasonable time to respond with that alternative evidence.
(II)Reasonably consider that alternative evidence in lieu of the persons credit history in determining whether to offer the rental accommodation to the applicant.
(2)This subdivision does not limit the ability of the owner of a housing accommodation to request information or documentation to verify employment, to request landlord references, or to verify the identity of a person.
(p)(1)For the purposes of this section, source of income means lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant, or to a representative of a tenant, or paid to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state, or local public assistance, and federal, state, or local housing subsidies, including, but not limited to, federal housing assistance vouchers issued under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f). Source of income includes a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing voucher. For the purposes of this section, a housing owner or landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant unless the source of income is a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing voucher.
(2)For the purposes of this section, it shall not constitute discrimination based on source of income to make a written or oral inquiry concerning the level or source of income.
SECTION 1.Section 82008 of the Government Code is amended to read:82008.City means a general law city or a chartered city.City means a general law city or a chartered city.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2024 | Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 877, Statutes of 2024. |
| Sep 28, 2024 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Sep 9, 2024 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m. |
| Aug 29, 2024 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 5676.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Aug 28, 2024 | In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending. |
| Aug 28, 2024 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 73. Noes 2. Page 6789.) Ordered to the Senate. |
| Aug 20, 2024 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 19, 2024 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Aug 15, 2024 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 1.) (August 15). |
| Aug 7, 2024 | August 7 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file. |
| Jul 2, 2024 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 1.) (July 2). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jun 20, 2024 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 19). Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Jun 3, 2024 | Referred to Coms. on L. & E. and JUD. |
| May 24, 2024 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| May 24, 2024 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 4209.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| May 22, 2024 | Ordered to special consent calendar. |
| May 20, 2024 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 16, 2024 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| May 16, 2024 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3971.) (May 16). |
| May 14, 2024 | Set for hearing May 16. |
| May 13, 2024 | May 13 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file. |
| May 3, 2024 | Set for hearing May 13. |
| Apr 24, 2024 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 3757.) (April 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 17, 2024 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L., P.E. & R. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 3635.) (April 16). Re-referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R. |
| Apr 16, 2024 | Set for hearing April 24 in L., P.E. & R. pending receipt. |
| Apr 5, 2024 | Set for hearing April 16. |
| Apr 4, 2024 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Apr 3, 2024 | Re-referred to Coms. on JUD. and L., P.E. & R. |
| Mar 18, 2024 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Feb 21, 2024 | Referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Feb 14, 2024 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 15. |
| Feb 13, 2024 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 29, 2024 | Unfinished Business SB1100 Portantino Concurrence | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 28, 2024 | SB 1100 Portantino Senate Third Reading By Bryan | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 15, 2024 | Do pass as amended. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jul 2, 2024 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary |
Passed |
|
| Jun 19, 2024 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary] | Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment |
Passed |
|
| May 24, 2024 | Special Consent SB1100 Portantino | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 16, 2024 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| May 13, 2024 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 24, 2024 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement |
Passed |
|
| Apr 16, 2024 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Labor, Public Employment and Retirement ] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| Active San Gabriel Valley | ** Support | |
| Bike LA | ** Support | |
| Car-Lite Long Beach | ** Support | |
| Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice | ** Support | |
| East Bay for Everyone | ** Support | |
| Everybody's Long Beach | ** Support | |
| Long Beach Bike Co-op | ** Support | |
| Los Angeles Walks | ** Support | |
| Marin County Bicycle Coalition | ** Support | |
| Pedal Movement | ** Support | |
| People for Housing OC | ** Support | |
| People For Housing Orange County | ** Support | |
| Safe Routes Partnership | ** Support | |
| San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility | ** Support | |
| Streets for All | ** Support | |
| Transbay Coalition | ** Support | |
| Yimby Action | ** Support | |
| Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles | ** Support |
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 1100 |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1100
Author: Portantino (D)
Amended: 8/19/24
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/16/24
AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Min, Niello, Stern, Wahab
SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/24/24
AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Wilk, Cortese, Durazo, Laird
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/16/24
AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab
SENATE FLOOR: 38-0, 5/24/24
AYES: Alvarado-Gil, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Archuleta
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-2, 8/28/24 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Discrimination: driver’s license
SOURCE: Streets for All
DIGEST:
This bill prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of an individual’s lack of a driver’s license or car ownership, with exceptions, as specified.
Assembly Amendments
are minor technical clean up to incorporate the bill’s provisions into an existing Government Code section instead of creating a new code section.
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal law:
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer with 15 or more employees to fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Makes it an unlawful employment practice to limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive them of employment opportunities or adversely affect their employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of their age, and makes it an unlawful employment practice to limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive them of employment opportunities or adversely affect their employment because of their age. (29 U.S.C. § 623.)
- Requires, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that all state and local government employers and all private employers with 15 or more employees, provide reasonable accommodation to qualified employees or applicants with disabilities, as defined, unless to do so would cause the employer undue hardship. (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12117, 12201-12213.)
- Defines a “qualified individual” as an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that the individual holds or desires. For the purposes of this title, consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).)
- States that “reasonable accommodation” may include making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(9).)
- Defines an “undue hardship” as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the following factors, among other things:
a) The nature and cost of the accommodation needed under this Act;
b) The overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the facility;
c) The overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and
d) The type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10).)
- Specifies that the ADA supersedes state law, except where state law provides greater protections for individuals with disabilities. (29 C.F.R. § 1630.1(c) (2).)
Existing state law:
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or security regulations, for an employer to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decision-making, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status of the individual. (Gov. Code § 12940(a).)
- Clarifies that (1), above, does not prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee with a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition, or subject an employer to any legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the discharge of an employee with a physical mental disability, if the employee, because of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition, is unable to perform the employee’s essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employee’s health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations. (Gov. Code § 12940(a) (1) and (2).)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to make reasonable accommodations for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee but does not require an accommodation that is demonstrated by the employer or other covered entity to produce undue hardship, as defined, to its operation. (Gov. Code § 12940(m) (2).)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition. (Gov. Code § 12940(n).)
- Defines “reasonable accommodation” to include either of the following:
a) Making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities; or
b) Job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. (Gov. Code § 12926(p).)
- Defines “undue hardship” to mean an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the following factors:
a) The nature and cost of the accommodation needed;
b) The overall financial resources of the facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodations, the number of persons employed at the facility, and the effect on expenses and resources or the impact otherwise of these accommodations upon the operation of the facility;
c) The overall financial resources of the covered entity, the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of employees, and the number, type, and location of its facilities;
d) The type of operations, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the entity; and
e) The geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities. (Gov. Code § 12926(u).)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer or covered entity to discriminate against an individual because they hold or present a driver’s license issued under Section 12801.9 of the Vehicle Code. (Gov. Code § 12926(u).)
This bill makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a driver’s license, unless: (1) the employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position; and (2) the employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function through an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- Costs of approximately $1 million in fiscal year (FY) 2025-26, $987,000 in FY 2026-27, and $977,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) for five additional positions to provide enforcement for every 100 complaints that arise from this new unlawful employment practice (General Fund (GF)). CRD anticipates possible complaints to be in the hundreds each year, necessitating increased staff to investigate, mediate, and prosecute violations, and potentially issue new regulations. These costs also include $10,000 in annual expenses for education and outreach about the prohibition, such as accommodations for trainings and translations for informational materials.
- By creating a new unlawful employment practice enforceable by CRD, this bill may result in new civil actions filed by CRD or a complainant against an employer, thus increasing cost pressures of an unknown amount to the state court system (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). Although CRD has an extensive process to attempt to resolve complaints prior to bringing a civil action, CRD may also issue a “right to sue” letter allowing the complainant to bring a civil action without exhausting CRD’s administrative process. It is unclear how many civil actions may be filed statewide, but the estimated workload cost of one hour of court time is $1,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a need for increased court funding from the GF to perform existing duties. The Budget Act of 2024 includes $37.3 million ongoing GF to backfill declining TCTF revenue.
- Costs of an unknown amount to the state as an employer to revise job application materials and comply with the prohibition (GF and special funds).
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the GF faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.
SUPPORT: (Verified 08/19/24)
Streets for All (Source)
Active San Gabriel Valley
Bike LA
Car-Lite Long Beach
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
East Bay for Everyone
Everybody's Long Beach
Long Beach Bike Co-op
Los Angeles Walks
Marin County Bicycle Coalition
Pedal Movement
People for Housing - Orange County
Safe Routes Partnership
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Transbay Coalition
Yimby Action
Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles
OPPOSITION: (Verified 08/19/24)
None received.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Streets For All:
“SB 1100 will prohibit employers from listing the possession of a driver’s license and/or vehicle ownership as a preferred or required qualification. SB 1100 will also prohibit landlords from discriminating against existing or prospective tenants who do not have a driver’s license and/or do not own a vehicle.”
“In most cases, possessing a driver's license or owning a car is not directly related to an individual's ability to perform their job duties effectively, and focusing on this aspect of a candidate's personal life is irrelevant to their qualifications and capabilities.”
“Basing hiring decisions on whether or not a candidate has a driver's license or owns a vehicle can perpetuate broader systemic biases and assumptions about who is considered a "desirable" or "reliable" employee. This can contribute to discrimination against marginalized communities and reinforce socioeconomic disparities while also perpetuating car dependency, as people are made to feel that they must own a vehicle in order to gain employment.”
“Discriminating against individuals without driver's licenses or vehicles disproportionately affects certain groups including: people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and those living in urban areas with access to public transportation who choose not to drive or own a vehicle. Such discrimination perpetuates existing inequalities and further disadvantages these groups in the job market. Prohibiting discrimination based on possession of a driver's license and/or vehicle ownership will encourage employers to focus on relevant job qualifications and skills when making hiring decisions. It promotes inclusive hiring practices that consider a larger, more diverse pool of candidates and values individuals for their abilities rather than arbitrary criteria unrelated to job performance.”
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-2, 8/28/24
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Flora, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas
NOES: Dixon, Essayli
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cervantes, Ortega, Sanchez, Ta
Prepared by: Glenn Miles / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556
8/28/24 22:39:40
**** END ****
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 1100
Author:(Portantino)
As Amended Ver:August 19, 2024
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Makes it an unlawful employment practice under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application or other material that an applicant must have a driver's license unless 1) the employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position, and 2) the employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function through an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
Major Provisions
See summary.
COMMENTS
According to a 2017 report by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 30% of civilian jobs in 2016 required driving a passenger vehicle or some other type of vehicle while on the job.[1]
Despite driving not being part of the duties for the majority of civilian jobs, many hiring entities require proof of driver's license from job applicants. This has been found to disproportionately affect low-income people, minorities and individuals with disabilities.
According to a 2024 report by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, only 60.4% of people with disabilities drive a car. The report also found that 12.2% of workers with disabilities live in zero-vehicle households, as compared to just 3.9% for workers without disabilities.[2]
Furthermore, between 1998 and 2017, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute conducted extensive research on the importance of a driver's license as it relates to employment. Among their findings were:
- Mothers with young children receiving public assistance and in subsidized child care were twice as likely to find sustained employment if they had a driver's license and, for this population, possession of a driver's license was more critical to obtaining steady work than having a high school diploma.
- Teens from lower-income neighborhoods are much less likely than those from upper-income neighborhoods to obtain a driver's license by age 18.
- Youth of color have much lower rates of licensing than their white counterparts.[3]
These findings are mirrored in other areas of the country, as well. A 2007 study by Rutgers University found that only about 17% of all licensed drivers in New Jersey live in lower income zip codes.[4]
Driver's license suspensions were originally used as a tool to keep bad drivers off the road. However, reasons for driver's license suspensions have evolved to include those indirectly related to driver safety. Research shows that minorities are more often subject to fines related to what is known as "driving while poor." Drivers may be pulled over and cited for minor vehicle or traffic infractions and, if unable to satisfy those judgements, have their licenses suspended.
Some reasons for driver's license are not related to driving at all. For example, in California a person's driver's license can be suspended for failure to pay child support.
As noted above, having a suspended driver's license or not having a driver's license at all can be a barrier to employment. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee study found that many Milwaukee teens are unlikely to be employed full-time as adults due to non-driving suspensions they received as juveniles.[5]
The Rutgers University study made similar findings:
- 42% of survey respondents with a history of suspensions lost their jobs when they had their driving privileges suspended.
- 45% of those who lost their job because of a suspension were unable to find another job.
- Of those who did find new employment, 88% reported a decrease in income.[6]
According to the Author
"In California, it is common for employers to request a driver's license as part of the application process for housing and employment. This practice poses significant barriers for certain segments of the population, including young adults, the elderly, immigrants, individuals with disabilities, and those who choose not to drive due to environmental concerns or personal preferences. Furthermore, this practice disproportionately affects low-income individuals and communities of color, who may have less access to personal transportation. The result is a systemic exclusion from essential services and opportunities, exacerbating social inequities and limiting economic mobility."
Regarding how the bill promotes equity solutions and maximizes benefits for underserved and marginalized communities, the author adds that "The bill removes unnecessary barriers to employment and supports equal access to economic stability for all community members. By prohibiting employers from requiring a driver's license unless it is essential for the job, the bill addresses a common hurdle faced by individuals who cannot afford a vehicle, have disabilities preventing them from driving, or who do not have a driver's license for various reasons."
Arguments in Support
Streets for All, sponsor of this measure, states that "Basing hiring decisions on whether or not a candidate has a driver's license or owns a vehicle can perpetuate broader systemic biases and assumptions about who is considered a "desirable" or "reliable" employee. This can contribute to discrimination against marginalized communities and reinforce socioeconomic disparities while also perpetuating car dependency, as people are made to feel that they must own a vehicle in order to gain employment."
Arguments in Opposition
None on file.
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- "Costs of approximately $1 million in fiscal year (FY) 2025-26, $987,000 in FY 2026-27, and $977,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) for five additional positions to provide enforcement for every 100 complaints that arise from this new unlawful employment practice (General Fund (GF)). CRD anticipates possible complaints to be in the hundreds each year, necessitating increased staff to investigate, mediate, and prosecute violations, and potentially issue new regulations. These costs also include $10,000 in annual expenses for education and outreach about the prohibition, such as accommodations for trainings and translations for informational materials.
- By creating a new unlawful employment practice enforceable by CRD, this bill may result in new civil actions filed by CRD or a complainant against an employer, thus increasing cost pressures of an unknown amount to the state court system (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). Although CRD has an extensive process to attempt to resolve complaints prior to bringing a civil action, CRD may also issue a "right to sue" letter allowing the complainant to bring a civil action without exhausting CRD's administrative process. It is unclear how many civil actions may be filed statewide, but the estimated workload cost of one hour of court time is $1,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a need for increased court funding from the GF to perform existing duties. The Budget Act of 2024 includes $37.3 million ongoing GF to backfill declining TCTF revenue.
- Costs of an unknown amount to the state as an employer to revise job application materials and comply with the prohibition (GF and special funds)."
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2
YES: Alvarado-Gil, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk
ABS, ABST OR NV: Allen, Archuleta
ASM LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT: 7-0-0
YES: Ortega, Flora, Alanis, Lowenthal, Lee, Ward, Zbur
ASM JUDICIARY: 10-1-1
YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Pacheco, Joe Patterson, Reyes
NO: Dixon
ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-1-3
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua
NO: Dixon
ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Jim Patterson, Ta
UPDATED
VERSION: August 19, 2024
CONSULTANT: Erin Hickey / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0003993
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, The Economics Daily, 30 percent of civilian jobs require some driving in 2016 at https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/30-percent-of-civilian-jobs-require-some-driving-in-2016.htm (visited June 11, 2024). ↑
United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Travel Patterns of Adults with Travel-Limiting Disabilities. Washington, DC: 2024. https://doi.org/10.21949/1530555 ↑
Pawasarat, John and Quinn, Lois M., "Research Brief on ETI Driver's License Studies" (2017). ETI Publications. 186. https://dc.uwm.edu/eti_pubs/186 ↑
Carnegie, Jon A., "Driver's License Suspensions, Impacts and Fairness Study" (2007), Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. https://vtc.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MVC-DL-Suspension-Study-Final-Report-Vol1_9-13-07_.pdf ↑
Pawasarat and Quinn. ↑
Carnegie. ↑
Date of Hearing: August 7, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1100
Author:(Portantino) – As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024
Policy Committee: | Labor and Employment | Vote: | 7 - 0 |
Judiciary | 10 - 1 | ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill makes it an unlawful employment practice under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for an employer to include a statement in employment materials that a job applicant must have a driver’s license, unless certain conditions are met.
To include a driver’s license requirement in a job posting, application, or other material, the employer must reasonably expect the duties of the position to require driving and believe using an alternative form of transportation for the job function would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer. Alternative forms of transportation include using a ride hailing service or taxi, carpooling, bicycling, and walking.
FISCAL EFFECT:
- Costs of approximately $1 million in fiscal year (FY) 2025-26, $987,000 in FY 2026-27, and $977,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) for five additional positions to provide enforcement for every 100 complaints that arise from this new unlawful employment practice (General Fund (GF)). CRD anticipates possible complaints to be in the hundreds each year, necessitating increased staff to investigate, mediate, and prosecute violations, and potentially issue new regulations. These costs also include $10,000 in annual expenses for education and outreach about the prohibition, such as accommodations for trainings and translations for informational materials.
- By creating a new unlawful employment practice enforceable by CRD, this bill may result in new civil actions filed by CRD or a complainant against an employer, thus increasing cost pressures of an unknown amount to the state court system (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). Although CRD has an extensive process to attempt to resolve complaints prior to bringing a civil action, CRD may also issue a “right to sue” letter allowing the complainant to bring a civil action without exhausting CRD’s administrative process. It is unclear how many civil actions may be filed statewide, but the estimated workload cost of one hour of court time is $1,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a need for increased court funding from the GF to perform existing duties. The Budget Act of 2024 includes $37.3 million ongoing GF to backfill declining TCTF revenue.
- Costs of an unknown amount to the state as an employer to revise job application materials and comply with the prohibition (GF and special funds).
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the GF faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. The author contends the practice of an employer requesting a driver’s license as part of the job application process “poses significant barriers for certain segments of the population, including young adults, the elderly, immigrants, individuals with disabilities, and those who choose not to drive due to environmental concerns or personal preferences.” According to the author, this bill “removes unnecessary barriers to employment and supports equal access to economic stability for all community members.” This bill is sponsored by Streets for All and supported by other active transportation groups.
- Discrimination in Job Requirements. FEHA prohibits workplace discrimination against a range of protected classes, such as individuals with disabilities, but some workplace discrimination is not as overt as targeting a protected class outright. For example, individuals with disabilities are statistically underrepresented in the ranks of individuals with driver’s licenses. As a result, job postings and hiring practices that require an applicant to have a driver’s license may indirectly overlook certain applicants.
This bill makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to specify in job materials that an applicant must have a driver’s license, unless the employer reasonably expects job duties to require driving and believes an alternative form of transportation would pose incomparable costs or other logistical impediments. However, this bill does not make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to actually require an individual to have a driver’s license as a condition of employment when job duties do not require driving or an alternative form of transportation is sufficient. Rather, this bill just makes it unlawful for an employer to state the requirement on job materials. Since an employer may utilize additional criteria to assess an applicant that is not stated in job materials, this bill contains a potential loophole that would allow an employer to maintain a hiring practice that benefits individuals with driver’s licenses.
Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: July 2, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Ash Kalra, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1100
Author:(Portantino) – As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024
SENATE VOTE: 38-0
SUBJECT: Discrimination: driver’s license
KEY ISSUE: should employers be prohibited from advertising a position of employment that requires a driver’s license unless there is a reasonable expectation that driving is a function of the position?
SYNOPSIS
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits workplace discrimination on the grounds of a range of protected classes, including persons with disabilities. However, the Act may inadvertently overlook discrimination that is not as overt as targeting a protected class. For example, persons with disabilities are statistically underrepresented in the ranks of those Californians with driver’s licenses. As a result, job postings that require an applicant to have a driver’s license may overlook these applicants. Such requirements also inadvertently impact lower income Californians who may not possess driver’s licenses for economic reasons. Furthermore, such requirements negatively impact Californians who are embracing a move toward a greener economy and are foregoing automobile ownership in favor of active transportation and public transit.
Seeking to ensure that driver’s license requirements do not inadvertently disqualify otherwise qualified Californians from applying for employment, this bill would prohibit a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material from stating that an applicant must have a driver’s license unless there is a reasonable expectation that driving is a function of the position and an alternative form of transportation would pose unreasonable costs or other logistical impediments to the employer. By making the prohibition in this measure an unlawful employment practice, the bill would subject violations of the measure to the enforcement provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
This measure is sponsored by Streets for All and is supported by a coalition of active transportation and environmental advocates. The proponents note that overly broad driver’s license requirements related to employment undermine efforts to move California to a greener transportation system. This measure has no known opposition and was previously heard and approved by the Committee on Labor and Employment by a vote of seven to zero.
SUMMARY: Prohibits a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material from stating that an applicant must have a driver’s license unless there is a reasonable expectation that driving is a function of the position and that an alternative form of transportation cannot suffice. Specifically, this bill:
- Prohibits, as an unlawful employment practice, an employer from including a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a driver’s license unless both of the following conditions are satisfied:
- The employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position; and
- The employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function described in a) using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
- Defines for the purposes of 1b) “alternative form of transportation” to include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
- Using a ride hailing service;
- Using a taxi;
- Carpooling;
- Bicycling; and
- Walking.
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes the Fair Employment and Housing Act to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or military and veteran status. (Government Code Section 12900 et seq.)
- Prohibits, as an unlawful employment practice, absent a bona fide occupational qualification, for an employer to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, based on the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status of the individual. (Government Code Section 12940 (a).)
- Provides that, notwithstanding 1), an employer may refuse to hire or discharge an employee with a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition, and not be subject to any legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the discharge of an employee with a physical mental disability, if the employee, because of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition, is unable to perform the employee’s essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employee’s health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations. (Ibid.)
- Prohibits, as an unlawful employment practice, an employer to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition. (Government Code Section 12940 (n).)
- Prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver’s license issued under Vehicle Code, except as specified. (Vehicle Code Section 12500 (a).)
- Prohibits a person under the age of 18 years from being employed for compensation by another for the purpose of driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this state. (Vehicle Code Section 12515 (a).)
- Prohibits any person under the age of 18 years to drive a school bus transporting pupils to or from school. (Vehicle Code Section 12516.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS: California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act offers workers protections from a myriad of forms of discrimination and mistreatment based on a broad array of protected classes. Additionally, in recent years, California law has moved toward removing barriers on housing and employment that arise before an individual applicant can be considered. This measure builds on this trend by prohibiting a job advertisement from stating that an applicant must have a driver’s license unless there is a reasonable expectation that driving is a function of the position and no other means of transportation will be workable for the employer. In support of this bill, the author states:
The purpose of this bill is to make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in various employment materials that an applicant must have a driver’s license unless the employer reasonably expects the duties of the position to require driving and the employer reasonably believes that satisfying that job function using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
California seeks to move toward a future less reliant on automobiles. According to the California Highway Patrol there are nearly 30 million licensed drivers in this state. While driving, and access to an automobile, still remains critical in California’s bedroom community dominated built landscape, California’s cities are seeking to offer automobile-free alternative modes of transportation. Indeed, nearly every major city in the state now offers some form of rail mass transit. Additionally, many cities are rapidly moving to deploy more bike infrastructure, including protected bike lanes and reclaimed rail trails. (See, e.g. Sacramento’s Del Rio Trail Project https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/public-works/engineering/projects/del-rio-trail-project.)
Furthermore, thanks to many local transportation agencies promoting bike-to-work events (for example May is Bike Month), a growing number of Californians are foregoing car ownership in favor of alternative modes of transportation. While many of these Californians are likely to retain their driver’s license, as a license is a helpful and convenient means of showing a government issued form of identification, some Californians who move away from car ownership may also opt to forego possessing a driver’s license.
By requiring driver’s licenses, many jobs inadvertently disqualify worthy potential employees. Despite improvement in non-automotive transportation options, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics noted that upwards of 30 percent of job postings required a driver’s license and described driving as critical to the position. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 30 percent of civilian jobs require some driving in 2016, The Economics Daily, available at https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/30-percent-of-civilian-jobs-require-some-driving-in-2016.htm.)
These requirements, however, automatically disqualify the 40 percent of persons with disabilities who do not drive. (United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Travel Patterns of Adults with Travel-Limiting Disabilities. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21949/1530555.) Similarly, licensing requirements are detrimental to job applicants who may have lost their driver’s license as a result of income or other economic factors. A 2007 study by Rutgers University highlighted the dangers of “driving while poor,” whereby a person’s inability to pay fines related to low-level traffic infractions (including “fix-it-ticket” violations wholly unrelated to a moving violation) can result in the loss of one’s driving privileges. (Jon Carnegie, Driver’s License Suspensions, Impacts and Fairness Study, The Rutgers University Voorhees Transportation Center (2007), available at: https://vtc.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MVC-DL-Suspension-Study-Final-Report-Vol1_9-13-07_.pdf.) Although California has moved to limit the impact of some traffic fines in recent years, a myriad of factors can cause a person to lose their driver’s license and thus the ability to seek some forms of employment.
This bill recognizes that many jobs that claim to require driver’s licenses do not actually need them. Without question, some jobs, for example a delivery driver or long-haul trucker, require applicants to have active licenses to operate motor vehicles. However, many jobs do not specifically require driving. Recognizing the negative impact of overly broad driver’s license requirements, this bill provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to post a job application that states that a driver’s license is a condition of employment unless driving is reasonably expected to be a function of the job and no alternative method of transportation would be comparable in cost or travel time. The bill clarifies that alternate transportation includes, but is not limited to, ride share or taxi services, bicycling, and walking.
This measure adopts a reasonable approach to ensure that employment that requires driving can still require licenses. Many jobs that portend to require driving, and thus require a license, may be able to be performed without the need for an automobile. For example, a courier can utilize a bicycle. In fact, in some large cities with significant traffic problems, like New York and San Francisco, bike couriers are preferred to automobile delivery drivers for their ability to avoid traffic and deliver goods in a timely manner. (Joseph Stromberg, Don't blame bike messengers for riding like maniacs. Blame their bosses, Vox, (Oct. 3, 2024) available at: https://www.vox.com/2014/10/3/6839359/bike-messengers-pay.) Indeed, even the logo for the popular food and grocery delivery service Postmates depicts a person on a bicycle with a basket (https://postmates.com/) implying that this service does not require a person to utilize a car to deliver goods and a customer’s take out order.
However, recognizing that some positions do require a driver’s license, for example the ride share drivers that this bill posits as an alternative means of transportation, this bill strikes a reasonable balance. In the event an employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position, they may continue to post licensing requirements in job applications. Accordingly, this measure appears to strike a balance between posting licensing requirements for positions that do involve driving and not overly excluding job applicants without driver’s licenses.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This common sense measure is sponsored by Streets for All and is supported by a coalition of active transportation and environmental advocates. A coalition letter in support of this bill states:
In most cases, possessing a driver's license or owning a car is not directly related to an individual's ability to perform their job duties effectively, and focusing on this aspect of a candidate's personal life is irrelevant to their qualifications and capabilities.
Basing hiring decisions on whether or not a candidate has a driver's license or owns a vehicle can perpetuate broader systemic biases and assumptions about who is considered a "desirable" or "reliable" employee. This can contribute to discrimination against marginalized communities and reinforce socioeconomic disparities while also perpetuating car dependency, as people are made to feel that they must own a vehicle in order to gain employment.
Discriminating against individuals without driver's licenses or vehicles disproportionately affects certain groups including: people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and those living in urban areas with access to public transportation who choose not to drive or own a vehicle. Such discrimination perpetuates existing inequalities and further disadvantages these groups in the job market.
Prohibiting discrimination based on possession of a driver's license and/or vehicle ownership will encourage employers to focus on relevant job qualifications and skills when making hiring decisions. It promotes inclusive hiring practices that consider a larger, more diverse pool of candidates and values individuals for their abilities rather than arbitrary criteria unrelated to job performance.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Streets for All (sponsor)
Active San Gabriel Valley
Bike LA
Car-lite Long Beach
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
East Bay for Everyone
Everybody's Long Beach
Long Beach Bike Co-op
Los Angeles Walks
Marin County Bicycle Coalition
Pedal Movement
People for Housing - Orange County
Safe Routes Partnership
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Transbay Coalition
Yimby Action
Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
Date of Hearing: June 19, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Liz Ortega, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1100
Author:(Portantino) – As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024
SENATE VOTE: 38-0
SUBJECT: Discrimination: driver’s license
SUMMARY: Makes it an unlawful employment practice under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application or other material that an applicant must have a driver’s license unless 1) the employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position, and 2) the employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function through an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, as defined, to: 1) fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to the individual’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or 2) to limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect their status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, as defined, to: 1) fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the individual’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age; or 2) to limit, segregate, or classify employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the individual’s status as an employee, because of such individual’s age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1)-(2).
- Prohibits a covered entity from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112.
- Requires, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that all employers, as defined, provide reasonable accommodation to qualified employees or applicants with disabilities, as defined, unless doing so would cause the employer undue hardship, as defined. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12117, 12201-12213.
- Specifies that the ADA supersedes state law, except where state law provides greater protections for individuals with disabilities. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.1(c)(2).
EXISTING STATE LAW:
- Establishes the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency, and empowers it to investigate and prosecute complaints alleging unlawful practices. Government Code § 12901.
- Establishes the FEHA, which prohibits various forms of employment and housing discrimination. Government Code § 12900 et seq.
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or applicable state or federal security regulations, for an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decision making, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Government Code § 12940(a).
- Clarifies that 1) above does not prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee with a physical or mental disability or medical condition, or subject an employer to any legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the discharge of an employee with a physical or mental disability or medical condition, if the employee, because of a physical or mental disability or medical condition, is unable to perform the employee’s essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employee’s health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations. Government Code § 12940(a)(1)-(2).
- Prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin, defined to include discrimination on the basis of possessing a driver’s license granted pursuant to law that requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue an original driver’s license to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant’s presence in the Unites States is authorized under federal law, as specified. Government Code § 12926(v).
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Civil Rights Department indicates unknown costs.
COMMENTS: This bill is double referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee upon passage out of this Committee.
Lack of Driver’s License as a Barrier to Employment
According to a 2017 report by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 30 percent of civilian jobs in 2016 required driving a passenger vehicle or some other type of vehicle while on the job.[1]
Despite driving not being part of the duties for the majority of civilian jobs, many hiring entities require proof of driver’s license from job applicants. This has been found to disproportionately affect low-income people, minorities and individuals with disabilities.
According to a 2024 report by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, only 60.4 percent of people with disabilities drive a car. The report also found that 12.2 percent of workers with disabilities live in zero-vehicle households, as compared to just 3.9 percent for workers without disabilities.[2]
Furthermore, between 1998 and 2017, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute conducted extensive research on the importance of a driver's license as it relates to employment. Among their findings were:
- Mothers with young children receiving public assistance and in subsidized child care were twice as likely to find sustained employment if they had a driver's license and, for this population, possession of a driver's license was more critical to obtaining steady work than having a high school diploma.
- Teens from lower-income neighborhoods are much less likely than those from upper-income neighborhoods to obtain a driver’s license by age 18.
- Youth of color have much lower rates of licensing than their white counterparts.[3]
These findings are mirrored in other areas of the country, as well. A 2007 study by Rutgers University found that only about 17 percent of all licensed drivers in New Jersey live in lower income zip codes.[4]
Driver’s License Suspensions
Driver’s license suspensions were originally used as a tool to keep bad drivers off the road. However, reasons for driver’s license suspensions have evolved to include those indirectly related to driver safety. Research shows that minorities are more often subject to fines related to what is known as “driving while poor.” Drivers may be pulled over and cited for minor vehicle or traffic infractions and, if unable to satisfy those judgements, have their licenses suspended.
Some reasons for driver’s license are not related to driving at all. For example, in California a person’s driver’s license can be suspended for failure to pay child support.
As noted above, having a suspended driver’s license or not having a driver’s license at all can be a barrier to employment. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee study found that many Milwaukee teens are unlikely to be employed full-time as adults due to non-driving suspensions they received as juveniles.[5]
The Rutgers University study made similar findings:
- 42 percent of survey respondents with a history of suspensions lost their jobs when they had their driving privileges suspended.
- 45 percent of those who lost their job because of a suspension were unable to find another job.
- Of those who did find new employment, 88 percent reported a decrease in income.[6]
According to the author, “In California, it is common for employers to request a driver’s license as part of the application process for housing and employment. This practice poses significant barriers for certain segments of the population, including young adults, the elderly, immigrants, individuals with disabilities, and those who choose not to drive due to environmental concerns or personal preferences. Furthermore, this practice disproportionately affects low-income individuals and communities of color, who may have less access to personal transportation. The result is a systemic exclusion from essential services and opportunities, exacerbating social inequities and limiting economic mobility.”
Regarding how the bill promotes equity solutions and maximizes benefits for underserved and marginalized communities, the author adds that “The bill removes unnecessary barriers to employment and supports equal access to economic stability for all community members. By prohibiting employers from requiring a driver’s license unless it is essential for the job, the bill addresses a common hurdle faced by individuals who cannot afford a vehicle, have disabilities preventing them from driving, or who do not have a driver’s license for various reasons.”
Arguments in Support
Streets for All, sponsor of this measure, states that “Basing hiring decisions on whether or not a candidate has a driver's license or owns a vehicle can perpetuate broader systemic biases and assumptions about who is considered a "desirable" or "reliable" employee. This can contribute to discrimination against marginalized communities and reinforce socioeconomic disparities while also perpetuating car dependency, as people are made to feel that they must own a vehicle in order to gain employment.”
Arguments in Opposition
None on file.
Prior Legislation
AB 1660 (Alejo) Chapter 452, Statutes of 2014 made it a violation of the FEHA for an employer or other covered entity to discriminate against an individual because they hold or present a specified driver’s license, or require a person to present a driver’s license, except as specified, and made conforming changes to FEHA.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Active San Gabriel Valley
Bike LA
Car-Lite Long Beach
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
East Bay for Everyone
Everybody's Long Beach
Long Beach Bike Co-op
Los Angeles Walks
Marin County Bicycle Coalition
Pedal Movement
People for Housing - Orange County
Safe Routes Partnership
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Streets for All
Transbay Coalition
Yimby Action
Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Erin Hickey / L. & E. /
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, The Economics Daily, 30 percent of civilian jobs require some driving in 2016 at https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/30-percent-of-civilian-jobs-require-some-driving-in-2016.htm (visited June 11, 2024). ↑
United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Travel Patterns of Adults with Travel-Limiting Disabilities. Washington, DC: 2024. https://doi.org/10.21949/1530555 ↑
Pawasarat, John and Quinn, Lois M., "Research Brief on ETI Driver's License Studies" (2017). ETI Publications. 186. https://dc.uwm.edu/eti_pubs/186 ↑
Carnegie, Jon A., “Driver’s License Suspensions, Impacts and Fairness Study” (2007), Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. https://vtc.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MVC-DL-Suspension-Study-Final-Report-Vol1_9-13-07_.pdf ↑
Pawasarat and Quinn. ↑
Carnegie. ↑
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 1100 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1100
Author: Portantino (D)
Amended: 5/16/24
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/16/24
AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Min, Niello, Stern, Wahab
SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/24/24
AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Wilk, Cortese, Durazo, Laird
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/16/24
AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab
SUBJECT: Discrimination: driver’s license
SOURCE: Streets for All
DIGEST:
This bill prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of an individual’s lack of a driver’s license or car ownership, with exceptions, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal law:
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer with 15 or more employees to fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Makes it an unlawful employment practice to limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive them of employment opportunities or adversely affect their employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of their age, and makes it an unlawful employment practice to limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive them of employment opportunities or adversely affect their employment because of their age. (29 U.S.C. § 623.)
- Requires, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that all state and local government employers and all private employers with 15 or more employees, provide reasonable accommodation to qualified employees or applicants with disabilities, as defined, unless to do so would cause the employer undue hardship. (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12117, 12201-12213.)
- Defines a “qualified individual” as an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that the individual holds or desires. For the purposes of this title, consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).)
- States that “reasonable accommodation” may include making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(9).)
- Defines an “undue hardship” as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the following factors, among other things:
a) The nature and cost of the accommodation needed under this Act;
b) The overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the facility;
c) The overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and
d) The type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10).)
- Specifies that the ADA supersedes state law, except where state law provides greater protections for individuals with disabilities. (29 C.F.R. § 1630.1(c)(2).)
Existing state law:
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or security regulations, for an employer to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status of the individual. (Gov. Code § 12940(a).)
- Clarifies that (1), above, does not prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee with a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition, or subject an employer to any legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the discharge of an employee with a physical mental disability, if the employee, because of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition, is unable to perform the employee’s essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employee’s health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations. (Gov. Code § 12940(a)(1) and (2).)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to make reasonable accommodations for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee but does not require an accommodation that is demonstrated by the employer or other covered entity to produce undue hardship, as defined, to its operation. (Gov. Code § 12940(m)(2).)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition. (Gov. Code § 12940(n).)
- Defines “reasonable accommodation” to include either of the following:
a) making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities; or
b) job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. (Gov. Code § 12926(p).)
- Defines “undue hardship” to mean an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the following factors:
a) the nature and cost of the accommodation needed;
b) the overall financial resources of the facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodations, the number of persons employed at the facility, and the effect on expenses and resources or the impact otherwise of these accommodations upon the operation of the facility;
c) the overall financial resources of the covered entity, the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of employees, and the number, type, and location of its facilities;
d) the type of operations, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the entity; and
e) the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities. (Gov. Code § 12926(u).)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer or covered entity to discriminate against an individual because they hold or present a driver’s license issued under Section 12801.9 of the Vehicle Code. (Gov. Code § 12926(u).)
This bill makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a driver’s license, unless: (1) the employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position; and (2) the employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function through an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Civil Rights Department indicates unknown costs.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/16/24)
Streets for All (source)
Active San Gabriel Valley
BikeLA
Car-lite Long Beach
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
East Bay for Everyone
Everybody's Long Beach
Long Beach Bike Co-op
Los Angeles Walks
Marin County Bicycle Coalition
Pedal Movement
People for Housing - Orange County
Safe Routes Partnership
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Transbay Coalition
YIMBY Action
Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/16/24)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
According to Streets For All, the sponsor of SB 1100:
SB 1100 will prohibit employers from listing the possession of a driver’s license and/or vehicle ownership as a preferred or required qualification. SB 1100 will also prohibit landlords from discriminating against existing or prospective tenants who do not have a driver’s license and/or do not own a vehicle.
In most cases, possessing a driver's license or owning a car is not directly related to an individual's ability to perform their job duties effectively, and focusing on this aspect of a candidate's personal life is irrelevant to their qualifications and capabilities.
Basing hiring decisions on whether or not a candidate has a driver's license or owns a vehicle can perpetuate broader systemic biases and assumptions about who is considered a "desirable" or "reliable" employee. This can contribute to discrimination against marginalized communities and reinforce socioeconomic disparities while also perpetuating car dependency, as people are made to feel that they must own a vehicle in order to gain employment.
Discriminating against individuals without driver's licenses or vehicles disproportionately affects certain groups including: people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and those living in urban areas with access to public transportation who choose not to drive or own a vehicle. Such discrimination perpetuates existing inequalities and further disadvantages these groups in the job market. Prohibiting discrimination based on possession of a driver's license and/or vehicle ownership will encourage employers to focus on relevant job qualifications and skills when making hiring decisions. It promotes inclusive hiring practices that consider a larger, more diverse pool of candidates and values individuals for their abilities rather than arbitrary criteria unrelated to job performance.
Prepared by: Ian Dougherty / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
5/20/24 18:52:37
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
SB 1100 (Portantino) - Discrimination: driver’s license and car ownership
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
SB 1100 makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person for housing or employment because the person does not have a driver’s license or own a car.
*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********
The following information is revised to reflect amendments
adopted by the committee on May 16, 2024
Fiscal Impact:
The Civil Rights Department (CRD) indicates unknown costs.
Committee Amendments:
Deletes provisions making not owning a car or driver’s license a protected characteristic for the purposes of housing discrimination.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
SB 1100 (Portantino) - Discrimination: driver’s license and car ownership
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
SB 1100 expands the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to make it unlawful to discriminate against a person for housing or employment because the person does not have a driver’s license or own a car.
Fiscal Impact:
The Civil Rights Department (CRD) indicates unknown costs, potentially in the low millions. According to CRD, the number of eligible Californians without driver’s licenses and cars is unknown, but likely several million people. If this bill is enacted, CRD anticipates receiving an unknown number, but potentially in the hundreds, of discrimination complaints, that would need to be investigated, mediated, and potentially prosecuted. CRD would also need to conduct education and outreach on the new law in several languages.
Background:
In addition to the extensive federal anti-discrimination laws, California maintains its own anti-discrimination law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). FEHA is more expansive than the federal anti-discrimination laws, as it prohibits discrimination on a larger number of protected groups, and covers more employers in its prohibitions. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decision-making, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status, unless the discrimination is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or security regulations of the state or federal government. FEHA covers employers with five or more employees.
The FEHA is enforced by CRD and the courts. An aggrieved individual can file a complaint with CRD, and CRD investigates the alleged violation. If CRD concludes from its investigation that a violation occurred, it must then attempt to resolve the dispute through a conference or conciliation with the parties. If such a conference does not result in a resolution of the dispute and an elimination of the unlawful employment practice or housing discrimination, CRD may bring a civil action in court on behalf of the aggrieved applicant. If CRD ultimately decides not to pursue a civil action within 150 days of the filing of a complaint, CRD must issue to the complainant a “right-to-sue” notice allowing the complainant to pursue remedies in court themselves. If an applicant for employment or housing wins in court, they may receive actual damages, punitive damages, and any other relief the court deems necessary, along with reasonable attorney’s fees.
Proposed Law:
This bill would expand the FEHA to make discrimination on the basis of non-possession of a driver’s license or car unlawful. Specifically, this bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a driver’s license unless: (1) the employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position; and, (2) the employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function by using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or costs. “Alternative form of transportation” includes, but is not limited to, using a ride hailing service, taxi, carpooling, walking, and biking.
This bill additionally provides that it is unlawful for the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against or harass any person because of a person’s lack of a driver’s license or car ownership; to otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling based a person’s lack of a driver’s license or car ownership; and, to discriminate through public or private land use practices, decisions, and authorizations because of a person’s lack of a driver’s license or car ownership.
Related Legislation:
SB 731 (Ashby, 2023) would have made it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to provide an employee working from home at least 30 days’ notice before requiring they return to work in person, and to provide specified information in such notice, including an employee’s right to request continuing remote work as a reasonable accommodation for disability. SB 731 was vetoed by Governor.
AB 1660 (Alejo, Chapter 452, Statutes of 2014) specified that discrimination on the basis of national origin includes discrimination on the basis of a specified California driver’s license that may indicate the individual’s immigration status.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT
Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: SB 1100 Hearing Date: April 24, 2024
Author: | Portantino | ||
Version: | April 4, 2024 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Glenn Miles | ||
SUBJECT: Discrimination: driver’s license and car ownership
KEY ISSUE
This bill amends the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to make it unlawful to discriminate against a person for housing or employment on the basis that the person does not have a driver’s license or own a car.
ANALYSIS
Existing federal law:
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer with 15 or more employees to fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Makes it an unlawful employment practice to limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive them of employment opportunities or adversely affect their employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of their age, and makes it an unlawful employment practice to limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive them of employment opportunities or adversely affect their employment because of their age. (29 U.S.C. § 623.)
- Requires, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that all state and local government employers and all private employers with 15 or more employees, provide reasonable accommodation to qualified employees or applicants with disabilities, as defined, unless to do so would cause the employer undue hardship. (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12117, 12201-12213.)
- Defines a “qualified individual” as an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that the individual holds or desires. For the purposes of this title, consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).)
- States that “reasonable accommodation” may include making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(9).)
- Defines an “undue hardship” as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the following factors, among other things:
- The nature and cost of the accommodation needed under this Act;
- The overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the facility;
- The overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and
- The type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10).)
- Specifies that the ADA supersedes state law, except where state law provides greater protections for individuals with disabilities. (29 C.F.R. § 1630.1(c) (2).)
Existing state law:
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or security regulations, for an employer to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status of the individual. (Government Code (GC) § 12940(a))
- Does not prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee with a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition, or subject an employer to any legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the discharge of an employee with a physical mental disability, if the employee, because of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition, is unable to perform the employee’s essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employee’s health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations. (GC § 12940(a) (1) - (2))
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to make reasonable accommodations for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee but does not require an accommodation that is demonstrated by the employer or other covered entity to produce undue hardship, as defined, to its operation. (GC § 12940(m) (2))
- Makes it an unlawful employment practices for an employer to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition. (GC § 12940(n))
- Defines “reasonable accommodation” to include either of the following:
- Making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities; or
- Job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. (GC § 12926(p))
- Defines “undue hardship” to mean an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the following factors:
- the nature and cost of the accommodation needed;
- the overall financial resources of the facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodations, the number of persons employed at the facility, and the effect on expenses and resources or the impact otherwise of these accommodations upon the operation of the facility;
- the overall financial resources of the covered entity, the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of employees, and the number, type, and location of its facilities;
- the type of operations, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the entity; and
- the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities. (GC § 12926(u))
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer or covered entity to discriminate against an individual because they hold or present a driver’s license issued under Section 12801.9 of the Vehicle Code (i.e., an “AB 60 driver’s license” that does not require the applicant to prove legal residency in the U.S.). (GC § 12926(u))
- Makes it unlawful for the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against or harass any person because of the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, or genetic information of that person. (GC § 12955 (a))
- Makes it unlawful for the owner of any housing accommodation to make or to cause to be made any written or oral inquiry concerning the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, veteran or military status, or genetic information of any person seeking to purchase, rent, or lease any housing accommodation. (GC § 12955 (b))
- Makes unlawful other discriminatory practices related to housing and housing accommodation. (GC § 12955 et seq.)
This bill:
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a driver’s license unless both of the following conditions are satisfied:
- The employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position.
- The employer reasonably believes that satisfying the specified job function using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
- Defines “alternative form of transportation” to include, but not be limited to the following:
- Using a ride hailing service.
- Using a taxi.
- Carpooling.
- Bicycling.
- Walking.
- Amends several FEHA provisions regarding unlawful discrimination related to housing accommodations to add the condition of “lack of a driver’s license or car ownership” and thus, makes unlawful several specified discriminatory practices related to housing based on whether a person has a driver’s license or owns a car.
COMMENTS
1. Need for this bill?
According to the author:
“In California, it is common for property owners and employers to request a driver’s license as part of the application process for housing and employment. The law doesn’t regulate discrimination against people who do not own cars.”
2. Proponent Arguments
According to the sponsor and a coalition of not-for-profit supporters:
“Basing hiring decisions on whether or not a candidate has a driver's license or owns a vehicle can perpetuate broader systemic biases and assumptions about who is considered a "desirable" or "reliable" employee. This can contribute to discrimination against marginalized communities and reinforce socioeconomic disparities while also perpetuating car dependency, as people are made to feel that they must own a vehicle in order to gain employment.”
“Discriminating against individuals without driver's licenses or vehicles disproportionately affects certain groups including: people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and those living in urban areas with access to public transportation who choose not to drive or own a vehicle. Such discrimination perpetuates existing inequalities and further disadvantages these groups in the job market.”
“Prohibiting discrimination based on possession of a driver's license and/or vehicle ownership will encourage employers to focus on relevant job qualifications and skills when making hiring decisions. It promotes inclusive hiring practices that consider a larger, more diverse pool of candidates and values individuals for their abilities rather than arbitrary criteria unrelated to job performance.”
3. Opponent Arguments:
None received.
4. Dual Referral: The Senate Rules Committee referred this bill to both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement.
5. Prior Legislation:
SB 731 (Ashby, 2023) would have made it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to provide an employee working from home at least 30 days’ notice before requiring they return to work in person, and to provide specified information in such notice, including an employee’s right to request continuing remote work as a reasonable accommodation for disability. Governor Newsom vetoed SB 731 stating the 30-day notice requirement would be impractical.
AB 1660 (Alejo, Chapter 452, Statutes of 2014) specified that discrimination on the basis of national origin includes discrimination on the basis of a specified California driver’s license that may indicate the individual’s immigration status.
SUPPORT
Streets for All (sponsor)
Active San Gabriel Valley
Bike LA
Car-Lite Long Beach
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
East Bay for Everyone
Everybody's Long Beach
Long Beach Bike Co-op
Los Angeles Walks
Marin County Bicycle Coalition
Pedal Movement
People for Housing - Orange County
Safe Routes Partnership
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Transbay Coalition
Yimby Action
Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --
Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair
2023-2024 Regular Session
Bill No: SB 1100 (Author:Portantino)
Version: April 4, 2024
Hearing Date: April 16, 2024
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
Consultant: ID
SUBJECT
Discrimination: driver’s license and car ownership
DIGEST
This bill prohibits discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of an individual’s lack of a driver’s license or car ownership, with exceptions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Many Californians either cannot drive or choose not to drive cars. With the advent of a movement to make California cities more accessible to those who do not drive and promote alternative modes of transportation, and that a broad group of driving-age Californians do not have driver’s licenses, SB 1100 aims to even the playing field in employment and housing for those who do not or choose not to drive. The author further asserts that it is common practice for employers and housing providers to require a driver's license for non-driving-related housing and employment, a practice that acts as a gatekeeping mechanism to access to the fundamental needs of employment and transportation for non-drivers. To address this, SB 1100 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a driver’s license, unless the employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position, and the employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer. SB 1100 defines alternative form of transportation as including a ride hailing service, a taxi, carpooling, bicycling, and walking. SB 1100 also makes it unlawful for an owner of a housing accommodation, appraiser, a bank or mortgage company, and other persons involved in the provision of housing, as defined, from discriminating against a person for a lack of a driver’s license or car ownership. SB 1100 is sponsored by Streets for All, and supported by a coalition of environmental and community-based organizations. The committee has received no timely opposition.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW
Existing law:
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer with 15 or more employees to fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Makes it an unlawful employment practice to limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive them of employment opportunities or adversely affect their employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of their age, and makes it an unlawful employment practice to limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive them of employment opportunities or adversely affect their employment because of their age. (29 U.S.C. § 623.)
- Requires, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that all state and local government employers and all private employers with 15 or more employees, provide reasonable accommodation to qualified employees or applicants with disabilities, as defined, unless to do so would cause the employer undue hardship. (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12117, 12201-12213.)
- Defines a “qualified individual” as an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that the individual holds or desires. For the purposes of this title, consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).)
- States that “reasonable accommodation” may include making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(9).)
- Defines an “undue hardship” as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the following factors, among other things:
a) the nature and cost of the accommodation needed under this Act;
b) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the facility;
c) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and
d) the type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity. (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10).)
- Specifies that the ADA supersedes state law, except where state law provides greater protections for individuals with disabilities. (29 C.F.R. § 1630.1(c)(2).)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or security regulations, for an employer to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status of the individual. (Gov. Code § 12940(a).)
- Clarifies that (1), above, does not prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee with a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition, or subject an employer to any legal liability resulting from the refusal to employ or the discharge of an employee with a physical mental disability, if the employee, because of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition, is unable to perform the employee’s essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employee’s health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations. (Gov. Code § 12940(a)(1) and (2).)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to make reasonable accommodations for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee but does not require an accommodation that is demonstrated by the employer or other covered entity to produce undue hardship, as defined, to its operation. (Gov. Code § 12940(m)(2).)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practices for an employer to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition. (Gov. Code § 12940(n).)
- Defines “reasonable accommodation” to include either of the following:
a) making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities; or
b) job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. (Gov. Code § 12926(p).)
- Defines “undue hardship” to mean an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the following factors:
a) the nature and cost of the accommodation needed;
b) the overall financial resources of the facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodations, the number of persons employed at the facility, and the effect on expenses and resources or the impact otherwise of these accommodations upon the operation of the facility;
c) the overall financial resources of the covered entity, the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of employees, and the number, type, and location of its facilities;
d) the type of operations, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the entity; and
e) the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities. (Gov. Code § 12926(u).)
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer or covered entity to discriminate against an individual because they hold or present a driver’s license issued under Section 12801.9 of the Vehicle Code. (Gov. Code § 12926(u).)
This bill:
- Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a driver’s license, unless:
- The employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position; and
- The employer reasonably believes that satisfying the job function through an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer.
- Includes a lack of a driver’s license or car ownership as a prohibited basis for discrimination by an owner of any housing accommodation in the making of a variety of decisions or actions, including making any written or oral inquiry related to a person seeking to purchase, rent, or lease any housing accommodation, making, printing, or publishing any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that indicates any preference based on an person’s lack of a driver’s license or car ownership.
- Includes a lack of a driver’s license or car ownership as a prohibited basis for discrimination by an appraiser, bank, mortgage company, or other financial institution that provides financial assistance for the purchase, refinance, organization, or construction of any housing accommodation, and includes a lack of a driver’s license or car ownership in various other prohibitions against discrimination in housing.
COMMENTS
- Author’s statement
According to the Author:
California's diverse population includes a substantial number of non-drivers who rely on ride hails, public transportation, biking, and walking as their primary means of transportation. Despite this, the common practice to require a driver's license for non-driving-related housing and employment opportunities has become a gatekeeping mechanism that limits access to these fundamental needs. This practice not only overlooks the reality of many Californians' lives but also contradicts the state's goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging alternative transportation modes. Recognizing the adverse impact on equity, inclusivity, and environmental sustainability, there is a growing movement to reassess and reform policies that indirectly penalize non-drivers. The proposed policy aims to address this issue by making it unlawful for landlords and non-driving-related employers to require a driver's license, thus ensuring fairer access to housing and employment across the state. This initiative aligns with California's broader commitments to social justice, equity, and environmental stewardship.
- A movement is growing to encourage non-passenger vehicle means of transportation
While driving and car ownership has become ubiquitous in California’s contemporary suburban landscape, a movement toward more walkable, environmentally-friendly cities is fueling a push to decrease Californian’s reliance on cars. In 2022, there were 27,112,595 licensed drivers in California, representing 86 percent of the driving-age population of the state.[1] Many others in the state drive without have a license. This makes California the state with the largest population of drivers in the United States, accounting for 12 percent of all licensed drivers in the nation.[2]
Pollution from the prevalence of vehicles in California communities has significant harmful effects on the environment and Californians’ health. Cars contribute to the creation of ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, that can cause a variety of health problems, especially in children, the elderly, and those with asthma or other lung-related conditions.[3] Ozone can make it more difficult to breathe, and can cause shortness of breath, coughing or a sore or scratchy throat, inflamed and damaged airways, increased frequency of asthma attacks, greater susceptibility to infection in the lungs, and can cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.[4] In addition to ozone, vehicles produce the chemicals that form particulate matter, or particle pollution, that is associated with premature death by lung or heart disease, heart attacks, an irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory difficulties. Considering these serious health consequences, people who live, work, or go to school near significant vehicle traffic or roadways have an increased incidence and severity of health problems associated with air pollution. Low-income neighborhoods, communities of color and Native American communities living in urban areas are disproportionately exposed to air pollution and these adverse health outcomes.[5]
Cars are also a significant source of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. That is because combustion-engine cars release carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, in the combustion of gasoline. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the greenhouse gases emissions from transportation account for approximately 29 percent of the nation’s total greenhouse gas emissions, making transportation-related emissions the largest contributor to greenhouse gases.[6] These gases are the primary cause of global warming, as they trap heat in the atmosphere and create a “greenhouse” effect in which the atmosphere and planet warms due to this trapped heat.
In light of these serious adverse impacts of vehicle emissions on health and the environment, there has been a movement in recent decades to redesign American cities to be less reliant on passenger vehicles and more inclusive of walking, bicycles, and public transportation.[7] In addition to a decrease in drivers through such a movement, there are also many individuals who do not have driver’s licenses because they cannot drive. These individuals include those without the financial means to own or lease and maintain a car, and individuals with physical impairments like blindness that prevent them from being able to obtain a license to drive. In fact, people with disabilities are significantly less likely to drive than those without a disability, as data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show 91.7 percent of individuals without a disability drive, while only 60.4 percent of individuals with a disability do.[8] Given these numbers, the total group of driving-age individuals without a driver’s license in the United States numbers approximately 4,413,678.
- Federal anti-discrimination laws
A variety of state and federal laws address discrimination in the employment and housing context. At the federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibit discrimination against specified groups in the employment context. Section 1981 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and ethnicity in making and enforcing contracts, and applies to all private employers and labor organizations who discriminate against an employee or an independent contractor. (42 U.S.C. § 1981.) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, by public and private employers with more than 15 employees. (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a); 2000e(b).) In addition to these two foundational anti-discrimination laws, two other important federal anti-discrimination laws are the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Acts (ADA). The ADEA prohibits discrimination in employment against people aged 40 or older on the basis of their age by an employer with 20 or more employees. (29 U.S.C. § 620 et seq.) The ADA prohibits discrimination by private employers with 15 or more employees against a qualified individual with a disability on the basis of their disability. (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.)
Employment discrimination under caselaw can be proven in two different scenarios: where the employer’s actions are of disparate intent, in which they single out and treat an employee differently because of their membership in a protected class; and disparate impact, in which an employer applies a neutral policy on all employees that nonetheless has a discriminatory impact. To prove an intentional discrimination case, an employee must show that they are a member of a protected class (the protected classes for Title VII include race, color, religion, sex, and national origin), that they are qualified for the job for which they applied, that they were rejected despite their qualifications, and that after their rejection, the employer continued to seek applicants with the similar qualifications. (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, (1972) 41 U.S. 792). If the employee or job applicant proves these elements, they have made a prima facie case of discrimination, and the burden shifts to the employer to show that they had a lawful non-discriminatory reason for rejecting the employee. (Id.) However, an employer may also employ a neutral policy that nonetheless has a discriminatory effect. Such a case can also qualify as an unlawful employment practice under Title VII if the employee can demonstrate that the employer’s employment practice causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and the employer cannot demonstrate that the practice is job related for the specific position in question and consistent with business necessity. (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k).)
Under the ADA, a private employer may not discriminate against an individual with a disability who can perform all of the essential functions of the job, either with or without reasonable accommodations from the employer, because of their disability. (42 U.S.C. § 12112.) Such discrimination is prohibited in job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, compensation, training, or other terms or privileges of employment. If an employee or job applicant has a disability, they may request a reasonable accommodation to perform the job or apply for the position, and an employer cannot refuse the accommodation or take an adverse action against the employee unless the employer can show that such an accommodation would be an undue burden. (42 U.S.C.§ 12112(b)(5).) Discrimination under the ADA includes using qualification standards, employment tests, or other selection criteria that “screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities” unless the discriminatory standard or qualification is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. (42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6).)
A multitude of cases alleging a violation of the ADA have dealt with employer actions and job requirements that discriminated against individuals who could not drive due to a disability. For example, in Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, an employee for a police department who became partially blind and unable to drive sued his employer under the ADA after he was denied a promotion. (Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, (1997) 112 F.3d 1522.) In that case, the court ultimately ruled against the employee on the grounds that the job functions he could not complete due to his disability were essential functions of the job, and there were no reasonable accommodations available. In Shell v. Smith, the seventh circuit court of appeals held that an employee with hearing and vision impairments who was terminated for not having a commercial driver’s license could have a claim for discrimination under the ADA because a jury could find under the facts that driving was not an essential function of the job. (Shell v. Smith (2015) 789 F.3d 715.) Multiple other cases in various courts have also examined questions of whether driving is an essential function of the job such that an adverse action on the basis of being unable to drive or obtain a driver’s license constitutes disability discrimination.[9]
- California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
In addition to the extensive federal anti-discrimination laws, California maintains its own anti-discrimination law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). FEHA is more expansive than the federal anti-discrimination laws, as it prohibits discrimination on a larger number of protected groups, and covers more employers in its prohibitions. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decision-making, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status, unless the discrimination is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or security regulations of the state or federal government. (Gov. Code § 12940.) Unlike the APA and Title VII, which cover employers with 15 or more employees, FEHA covers employers with five or more employees. (Gov. Code § 12926.) Like the ADA, however, FEHA also includes an exception to its provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability when the employee cannot complete, even with a reasonable accommodation, the essential duties of the job.
In 2014, California passed AB 1660, to add prohibitions under FEHA against discrimination on the basis that an individual has a California AB 60 driver’s license. (AB 1660 (Alejo) Ch. 452, Stats. 2014.) AB 60 driver’s licenses are California driver’s licenses available to individuals who cannot obtain a standard California driver’s license because they cannot submit proof that their presence in the United States is authorized under federal immigration law. Because these driver’s licenses may indicate an individual’s immigration status, AB 1660 specified that employers and providers of housing cannot discriminate against applicants or employees who have AB 60 licenses. However, AB 1660 was specific to AB 60 licenses, and did not prohibit discrimination on the basis of lacking any driver’s license at all.
- This bill proposes to make discrimination on the basis of non-possession of a driver’s license unlawful
SB 1100 aims to specify that employers and landlords cannot discriminate against those who do not have a driver’s license or own a car. It does so by adding a section to provisions relating to FEHA that makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant for the job must have a driver’s license, unless two conditions are met. The two conditions sufficient for an exception to SB 1100’s prohibition require that the employer reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions for the position, and that the employer reasonably believes that satisfying this job function using an alternative form of transportation would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer. For the purposes of this exception, SB 1100 defines an “alternative form of transportation” as including: using a ride hailing service; using a taxi; carpooling; bicycling; and walking.
SB 1100 also makes various amendments to FEHA’s provisions relating to discrimination in housing, extending its various anti-discrimination provisions to cover individuals without a driver’s license or who do not own a car. Through these amendments, SB 1100 prohibits an owner of a housing accommodation from discriminating against or harassing any person, because of their lack of a driver’s license or car ownership. It prohibits an owner of a housing accommodation from making or causing to be made any written or oral inquiry regarding a lack of a driver’s license or car ownership to any person seeking to purchase, rent, or lease any housing accommodation. SB 1100 also prohibits any person from making, printing, or publishing any notice, statement or advertisement regarding the sale or rent of a housing accommodation that indicates any preference or limitation or discrimination on the basis of not having a driver’s license or car ownership.
SB 1100 also extends FEHA’s provisions against discrimination in the provision of protections in the buying, financing, or selling of real estate to those without a driver’s license or who do not own a car. These provisions prohibit a bank, mortgage company, or other financial institution that provides financial assistance for the purchase, refinance, organization, or construction of any housing accommodation to discriminate against a person or group of persons, and prohibit any person or organization or entity that engages in real estate transactions to discriminate against any person in making available a transaction, or in the terms and conditions of the transaction. These amendments also extend protections for those without a driver’s license or a car that they own from discrimination by persons or entities that perform residential real estate appraisals, or discrimination through public or private land use practices, decisions, and authorizations. Lastly, it extends prohibitions against discrimination by the denial of access to, or membership or participation in, a multiple listing service, real estate brokerage organization, or other service.
- The need for SB 1100
The author states that the goal of SB 1100 is to ensure fairer access to housing and employment, and to align anti-discrimination laws with California’s social justice, equity, and environmental goals. Considering the growing movement towards alternative forms of transportation, and that a broad group of driving-age Californians do not have driver’s licenses, the author asserts that SB 1100 will even the playing field in employment and housing for those who do not or choose not to drive. The author further asserts that it is common practice for employers and housing providers to require a driver's license for non-driving-related housing and employment, a practice that acts as a gatekeeping mechanism to access to the fundamental needs of employment and transportation for non-drivers.
While rates vary by occupation, data does show that 30 percent of all jobs in the United States require driving.[10] Reports find that requiring driver’s licenses for employment disproportionately affect people of color.[11] Moreover, such requirements may be disproportionately affecting disabled individuals, as they are far less likely than non-disabled individuals to drive or live in a household with a vehicle.[12] In fact, the data may already bare this inequitable impact out, as only 20.2 percent adults with disabilities work full or part time.[13] SB 1100 would achieve its goal of fairer access to housing and employment through prohibiting discrimination in the employment context, unless an employer meets an exception, against an applicant or employee who does not have a driver’s license, and through prohibiting discrimination in the housing context in a wide variety of acts against those who do not have a driver’s license or do not own a car.
In anti-discrimination law, as previously summarized, SB 1100’s employment prohibitions are not entirely new. It is already unlawful to discriminate against an employee or job applicant based on a disability, and employer requirements relating to driving or driver’s licenses have been challenged on this basis. While the caselaw certainly makes clear that such cases do not necessarily succeed, they also demonstrate how many such cases rest on a determination of whether driving is an essential function of the job. Here, SB 1100 prohibits discrimination on the basis of a lack of a driver’s license outright, and does not require that an employer’s rules that require driver’s licenses or driving be tied an underlying protected class like race, disability, or national origin. It would simply act to prohibit an employer from requiring a driver’s license outright, making not having a driver’s license a protected class, unless the employer can meet the exception.
The exception in SB 1100 is also similar to current exceptions in anti-discrimination law, as its basic premise is that the job requires driving and no alternative that could accommodate an applicant’s lack of a driver’s license exists. However, there are certain differences should be noted. The ADA and FEHA’s exception requires that an employer show that a task the employee cannot do due to their disability is an essential function of the job, and that there is no reasonable accommodation that can ensure the applicant can complete the essential functions of the job. Alternatively, an employer under the ADA can argue that a reasonable accommodation would unduly burden the employer such that they should not be required to do it and should not be held liable for not providing it.
However, SB 1100’s exception is a simpler, two-part test: did the employer reasonably expect driving to be one of the job functions for the position; and did the employer reasonably believe that an alternative form of transportation for completing the job function requiring driving would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the employer. This exception does not require that driving be an essential function of the job, and its comparable test for an alternative means of transportation is less stringent that the unduly burdensome test required under ADA law. Moreover, it places the employer at the center of the exception, as it is based on the employer’s expectations. By so doing, the focus of any exception would be what the employer expected and believed, and whether their expectations and beliefs were reasonable. This may operate to provide an employer with significant deference to their decisions, as the inquiry in any legal case would not be on the specific requirements of the job as much as on whether the employer’s expectations of the job were reasonable.
Thus, SB 1100 adds protections from discrimination to FEHA for non-drivers, and it creates a new standard for determining exceptions to its rule. While there is some overlap between current anti-discrimination law and SB 1100, its provisions would create a new protected class, and would create a specific, permissive exception for that class.
- SB 1100 would be enforced by the Civil Rights Department (CRD)
When an employer or a housing provider violates SB 1100’s provisions, an applicant would be able to seek redress through the CRD, as the CRD is tasked with the enforcement of FEHA. First, the applicant would have to file a complaint with CRD, and CRD would then investigate the alleged violation. (Gov. Code §§ 12960, 12963.) A job or housing applicant would have three years from the date of a violation of SB 1100’s provisions to file a complaint with CRD. (Gov. Code. §§ 12960(e)(5); 12989.1.) As part of an investigation, CRD has the authority to request a variety of documents and evidence from the parties involved, including the authority to issue subpoenas requiring the testimony of witnesses or the production of documents and records. (Gov. Code § 12963.2.) If CRD concludes from its investigation that a violation of SB 1100’s provisions occurred, it must then attempt to resolve the dispute through a conference or conciliation with the parties. If such a conference does not result in a resolution of the dispute and an elimination of the unlawful employment practice or housing discrimination, CRD may bring a civil action in court on behalf of the aggrieved applicant. (Gov. Code § 12965) If CRD ultimately decides not to pursue a civil action within 150 days of the filing of a complaint, CRD must issue to the complainant a “right-to-sue” notice allowing the complainant to pursue remedies in court themselves. (Gov. Code § 12965.) If an applicant for employment or housing wins in court, they may receive actual damages, punitive damages, and any other relief the court deems necessary, along with reasonable attorney’s fees. Through this process, SB 1100’s protections could be enforced through court by the CRD, or by the aggrieved applicant if the CRD decides not to enforce the applicant’s rights itself.
- Arguments in support
According to Streets For All, the sponsor of SB 1100:
SB 1100 will prohibit employers from listing the possession of a driver’s license and/or vehicle ownership as a preferred or required qualification. SB 1100 will also prohibit landlords from discriminating against existing or prospective tenants who do not have a driver’s license and/or do not own a vehicle.
In most cases, possessing a driver's license or owning a car is not directly related to an individual's ability to perform their job duties effectively, and focusing on this aspect of a candidate's personal life is irrelevant to their qualifications and capabilities.
Basing hiring decisions on whether or not a candidate has a driver's license or owns a vehicle can perpetuate broader systemic biases and assumptions about who is considered a "desirable" or "reliable" employee. This can contribute to discrimination against marginalized communities and reinforce socioeconomic disparities while also perpetuating car dependency, as people are made to feel that they must own a vehicle in order to gain employment.
Discriminating against individuals without driver's licenses or vehicles disproportionately affects certain groups including: people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and those living in urban areas with access to public transportation who choose not to drive or own a vehicle. Such discrimination perpetuates existing inequalities and further disadvantages these groups in the job market. Prohibiting discrimination based on possession of a driver's license and/or vehicle ownership will encourage employers to focus on relevant job qualifications and skills when making hiring decisions. It promotes inclusive hiring practices that consider a larger, more diverse pool of candidates and values individuals for their abilities rather than arbitrary criteria unrelated to job performance.
SUPPORT
Streets for All (sponsor)
Active San Gabriel Valley
BikeLA
Car-Lite Long Beach
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
East Bay for Everyone
Everybody’s Long Beach
Long Beach Bike Co Op
Los Angeles Walks
Marin County Bicycle Coalition
Pedal Movement
People for Housing OC
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Safe Routes Partnership
Transbay Coalition
YIMBY Action
Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles
OPPOSITION
None received
RELATED LEGISLATION
Pending Legislation: None known.
Prior Legislation:
SB 731 (Ashby, 2023) would have made it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to provide an employee working from home at least 30 days’ notice before requiring they return to work in person, and to provide specified information in such notice, including an employee’s right to request continuing remote work as a reasonable accommodation for disability. SB 731 was vetoed by Governor Newsom on the grounds that the 30-day notice requirement would be impractical.
AB 1660 (Alejo, Ch. 452, Stats. 2014) specified that discrimination on the basis of national origin includes discrimination on the basis of a specified California driver’s license that may indicate the individual’s immigration status.
**************
Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics 2022, Federal Highway Administration (Oct. 5, 2023), available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2022/. ↑
Id. ↑
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Learn About How Mobile Source Pollution Affects Your Health (Jan. 3, 2024), available at https://www.epa.gov/mobile-source-pollution/learn-about-how-mobile-source-pollution-affects-your-health#:~:text=Aggravated%20asthma%2C,parks%20and%20wilderness%20areas%3B%20and. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Pollution from Transportation (May 11, 2023), available at https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/carbon-pollution-transportation. ↑
See, Dylan Walsh, Reducing our reliance on cars: The shifting future of urban transportation, MIT Sloan School of Management (Dec. 13, 2017), available at https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/reducing-our-reliance-cars-shifting-future-urban-transportation; Gabby Birenbaum, How to end the American obsession with driving, VOX (Sept. 12, 2021), available at https://www.vox.com/22662963/end-driving-obsession-connectivity-zoning-parking; Susan Handy, White Paper: What California Gains from Reducing Car Dependence, National Center for Sustainable Transportation (Apr. 2020), available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0hk0h610. ↑
Stephen Brumbaugh, Issue Brief: Travel Patterns of American Adults with Disabilities, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (Sept. 2018), available at https://www.bts.gov/travel-patterns-with-disabilities#:~:text=Over%20nine%2Dtenths%20(91.7%20percent,percent%20drive%20if%20they%20do. ↑
See, Larson v. United Foods West Inc. (2013) 518 Fed. Appx. 589 (employee’s ADA claim failed because being qualified under Department of Transportation regulations for commercial drivers was an essential function of the job, and a six-month leave was not a reasonable accommodation); EEOC v. LHC Group, Inc. (2014) 773 F.3d 688 (home-health nurse was terminated due to her disability from epileptic seizures because driving was an essential function of the job); Bosarge v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer Serv. (2022) U.S. LEXIS 2046 (summary judgement against auto service worker with multiple sclerosis claiming ADA violation appropriate because driving was an essential function of the job). ↑
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 30 percent of civilian jobs require some driving in 2016, The Economics Daily (Apr. 9, 2024), available at https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/30-percent-of-civilian-jobs-require-some-driving-in-2016.htm. ↑
Alana Semuels, No Driver’s License, No Job, The Atlantic (Jun. 15, 2016), available at https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/no-drivers-license-no-job/486653/. ↑
Brumbaugh, supra note 7. ↑
Id. ↑
Discussed in Hearing
1MIN
Senate Floor
55SEC
Assembly Floor
2MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary
3MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment
4MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):