California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 1378 — California Whistleblower Protection Act: Legislature: employees.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

The California Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits an employee, as defined to include specified employees in the executive and judicial branches of state government, 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 of 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 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. This bill would make these provisions of the act applicable to the Legislature, except that procedures regarding notices of adverse action and the State Personnel Board would not apply, penalties would not apply to the extent that a Member of the Legislature is immune from liability under the doctrine of legislative immunity, and Members of the Legislature would not be persons permitted to submit an allegation to initiate an investigation against the Legislature or a Member or an employee of the Legislature or be offended parties permitted to bring an action for civil damages against a Member or an employee of the Legislature. The bill would authorize an employee of the Legislature or an applicant for employment with the Legislature to file a written complaint with his or her supervisor, manager, or other officer designated by the Committee on Rules of the Assembly or Senate, as applicable, alleging improper acts, together with a sworn statement that the complaint is true, under penalty of perjury, within one year of the most recent improper act complained about. The bill would require the Committees on Rules of the Assembly and Senate to each designate an officer to receive these written complaints. By expanding the scope of crimes under the act, 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. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Set, first hearing. Held under submission.

  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  5. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  6. Read second time and amended.

  7. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (January 10).

  8. Re-referred to Com. on JUD. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.

  9. Re-referred to Com. on G.O.

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

  11. Referred to Com. on G.O.

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

  13. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Portantino · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Portantino

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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

Subjects

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 1378 do?
The California Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits an employee, as defined to include specified employees in the executive and judicial branches of state government, 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 of 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 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. This bill would make these provisions of the act applicable to the Legislature, except that procedures regarding notices of adverse action and the State Personnel Board would not apply, penalties would not apply to the extent that a Member of the Legislature is immune from liability under the doctrine of legislative immunity, and Members of the Legislature would not be persons permitted to submit an allegation to initiate an investigation against the Legislature or a Member or an employee of the Legislature or be offended parties permitted to bring an action for civil damages against a Member or an employee of the Legislature. The bill would authorize an employee of the Legislature or an applicant for employment with the Legislature to file a written complaint with his or her supervisor, manager, or other officer designated by the Committee on Rules of the Assembly or Senate, as applicable, alleging improper acts, together with a sworn statement that the complaint is true, under penalty of perjury, within one year of the most recent improper act complained about. The bill would require the Committees on Rules of the Assembly and Senate to each designate an officer to receive these written complaints. By expanding the scope of crimes under the act, 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 1378?
AB 1378 is sponsored by Portantino.
What is the current status of AB 1378?
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 1378?
Track AB 1378 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1378

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 1378

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →