California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

AB 1749 — California Whistleblower Protection Act: Administrative Office of the Courts.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 160, Statutes of 2010.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 08, 2010. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 78% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 4 sponsors

    1 primary, 3 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 5 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

The California Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits a state employee from using his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, or commanding any person for the purpose of interfering with his or her right to make a protected disclosure, defined to include the communication of information that may evidence an improper governmental activity. The act requires the State Auditor to investigate and report on improper governmental activities, as specified. The act authorizes an employee or applicant for state employment who files a written complaint alleging reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts to also file a copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board, together with a sworn statement that the complaint is true, under penalty of perjury. The act provides that any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts against a state employee or applicant for state employment for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to punishment for a misdemeanor, and shall be liable in an action for civil damages brought by the injured party. The act defines "employee" as a person appointed by the Governor or employed or holding office in a state agency, as specified. This bill would include a person employed by the Supreme Court, a court of appeal, a superior court, or the Administrative Office of the Courts within the definition of "employee" for the purposes of the California Whistleblower Protection Act, except as specified. The bill would authorize an employee or applicant for employment with those judiciary entities who files a written complaint alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts for having made a protected disclosure, to also file a copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board, together with a sworn statement that the written complaint is true, under penalty of perjury. The bill would require the State Personnel Board to investigate any claim filed and make a recommendation regarding the alleged retaliation. The bill would provide that any person, except as specified, who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts against an employee or applicant for employment with those judiciary entities for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to punishment for a misdemeanor, and shall be liable in an action for civil damages brought by the injured party. The bill also would prohibit an employee of those judiciary entities from using his or her official authority or influence in violation of these provisions, and would make that employee liable, except as specified, in an action for civil damages brought by the injured party. By expanding the scope of the crimes of perjury and the intentional reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts against a state employee, as described above, to include an employee of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 160, Statutes of 2010.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and to the Governor at 4:50 p.m.

  4. In Assembly. To enrollment.

  5. Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 33. Noes 0. Page 4374.)

  6. Read second time. To Consent Calendar.

  7. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and to Consent Calendar.

  8. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Re-referred. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 29).

  9. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  10. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  11. Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 70. Noes 0. Page 5278.)

  12. Read second time. To third reading.

  13. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (May 12).

  14. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. Read second time and amended.

  16. From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 20).

  17. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  18. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  19. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  20. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  21. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  22. From printer. May be heard in committee March 11.

  23. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Audra Strickland · Cosponsor
  • Jones · Cosponsor
  • Evans · Cosponsor
  • Josh Lowenthal · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 118 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (3)

  • Audra Strickland
  • Jones
  • Evans

Not signed on (118)

118 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 118 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Consent Calendar 2nd AB1749 Bonnie Lowenthal

Passed 34 Yea · 0 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 31005
Democratic 2000
Republican 1000
Total 34005
% of votes cast 87%0%0%13%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Harman — Yea
Hollingsworth — Yea
Huff — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Runner — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Price — Yea
Romero — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Florez — Not Voting
Oropeza — Not Voting
Wiggins — Not Voting
Aanestad — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wright — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
DeSaulnier — Not Voting
Denham — Not Voting
Dutton — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

AB 1749 LOWENTHAL Assembly Third Reading

Passed 82 Yea · 0 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 76009
Democratic 3000
Republican 3000
Total 82009
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (91)
Member Party Vote
Hagman — Yea
Bill — Yea
Tom — Yea
Adams — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Beall — Yea
Evans — Not Voting
Feuer — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Charles — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Hall — Not Voting
Harkey — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Hill — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Audra — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Carter — Yea
Block — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea
Huber — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Silva — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Tran — Yea
Saldana — Not Voting
Knight — Not Voting
Nava — Not Voting
Norby — Not Voting
Villines — Not Voting
Bass — Not Voting
Blakeslee — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hernandez — Not Voting
Huffman — Yea
Logue — Yea
Ma — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Eng — Yea
DeVore — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 16001
Democratic 0001
Total 16002
% of votes cast 89%0%0%11%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Fuentes — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Hill — Yea
Charles — Not Voting
Bradford — Yea
Miller — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Norby — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Conway — Yea
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 1749 do?
The California Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits a state employee from using his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, or commanding any person for the purpose of interfering with his or her right to make a protected disclosure, defined to include the communication of information that may evidence an improper governmental activity. The act requires the State Auditor to investigate and report on improper governmental activities, as specified. The act authorizes an employee or applicant for state employment who files a written complaint alleging reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts to also file a copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board, together with a sworn statement that the complaint is true, under penalty of perjury. The act provides that any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts against a state employee or applicant for state employment for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to punishment for a misdemeanor, and shall be liable in an action for civil damages brought by the injured party. The act defines "employee" as a person appointed by the Governor or employed or holding office in a state agency, as specified. This bill would include a person employed by the Supreme Court, a court of appeal, a superior court, or the Administrative Office of the Courts within the definition of "employee" for the purposes of the California Whistleblower Protection Act, except as specified. The bill would authorize an employee or applicant for employment with those judiciary entities who files a written complaint alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts for having made a protected disclosure, to also file a copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board, together with a sworn statement that the written complaint is true, under penalty of perjury. The bill would require the State Personnel Board to investigate any claim filed and make a recommendation regarding the alleged retaliation. The bill would provide that any person, except as specified, who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts against an employee or applicant for employment with those judiciary entities for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to punishment for a misdemeanor, and shall be liable in an action for civil damages brought by the injured party. The bill also would prohibit an employee of those judiciary entities from using his or her official authority or influence in violation of these provisions, and would make that employee liable, except as specified, in an action for civil damages brought by the injured party. By expanding the scope of the crimes of perjury and the intentional reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts against a state employee, as described above, to include an employee of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 1749?
AB 1749 is sponsored by Audra Strickland, Jones, Evans, and Lowenthal, Josh (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 1749?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 08, 2010. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 1749?
Track AB 1749 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1749

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 1749

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →