California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 496 — Improper governmental activity: disclosure: protection.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 781, Statutes of 2013.

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 21, 2013. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · 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.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 6 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

(1) The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim for money or damages against the state. This bill would create an exception to the general procedure for a claim alleging a violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act. (2) The California Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits acts of reprisal, retaliation, coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or an applicant for state employment who made a protected disclosure relating to an improper governmental activity, as defined. The State Civil Service Act requires the State Personnel Board to initiate a hearing or investigation of a complaint of reprisal or retaliation in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act within 10 working days and the executive officer of the board to complete the findings of the hearing or investigation within 60 working days. The State Civil Service Act authorizes the executive officer to consolidate a case with the same or similar allegations to those contained in an appeal and exempts consolidated cases from the time limits for hearings, investigations, and findings. This bill would modify these requirements to instead require the board to render its decision on the consolidated matter within 6 months of the date of the order of consolidation, as specified. The bill would also make other technical changes. The act further authorizes the State Auditor to investigate and report whether it finds that a state agency or employee may have engaged or participated in an improper governmental activity. Under the act, any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or applicant for state employment for having made a disclosure that may evidence an improper governmental activity or dangerous condition is subject to, among other things, liability in an action for damages brought against him or her by the injured party. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of claims as a prerequisite to commencement of actions for money or damages against the State of California, counties, cities, cities and counties, districts, local authorities, and other political subdivisions of the state, and against the officers, employees, and servants of those entities. This bill would establish an exception for an action for damages pursuant to the California Whistleblower Protection Act from the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act. (3) Existing law prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Existing law prohibits any employer from retaliating against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency pursuant to these provisions or for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a state or federal statute or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Under existing law, an employer who violates these provisions is guilty of a crime. This bill would expand these provisions to prohibit an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of or noncompliance with a local rule or regulation. The bill would prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information to a government or law enforcement agency, or to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. The bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee for disclosing, or refusing to participate in an activity that would result in, a violation of or noncompliance with a local rule or regulation. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 666 and AB 263 that would become operative if this bill and either SB 666 or AB 263, or both, are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) Because this bill would change the definition of a crime, this 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 781, Statutes of 2013.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 2370.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 3133.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended. (Page 2938.)

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 13. Noes 2.) (July 3).

  11. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  13. Hearing postponed by committee.

  14. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  15. Hearing postponed by committee.

  16. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  17. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  18. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 907.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  19. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  20. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  21. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  22. Set for hearing May 6.

  23. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 643.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  24. Set for hearing April 22.

  25. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on P.E. & R.

  26. Referred to Com. on P.E. & R.

  27. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 24.

  28. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Wright · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

  • Wright

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

Unfinished Business SB496 Wright Concurrence

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 36000
Democratic 3000
Total 39000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huff — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Evans — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Wright — Yea
Corbett — Yea
De León — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Yea
Knight — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Block — Yea
Liu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Torres — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

SB 496 Wright Senate Third Reading By DICKINSON

Passed 76 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 69002
Democratic 4000
Republican 3000
Total 76002
% of votes cast 97%0%0%3%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Holden — Yea
Linder — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mansoor — Not Voting
Olsen — Yea
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Weber — Yea
Williams — Yea
Daly — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Allen — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Logue — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Fox — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Fong — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Levine — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Chau — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Donnelly — Not Voting
Eggman — Yea
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 13 Yea · 2 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 12202
Democratic 1000
Total 13202
% of votes cast 76%12%0%12%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Holden — Yea
Linder — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wagner — Not Voting
Gatto — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Campos — Yea
Hall — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Donnelly — Not Voting
Eggman — Yea
Pan — Yea
Weber — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Special Consent #4

Passed 34 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 32003
Democratic 2001
Total 34004
% of votes cast 89%0%0%11%
How each member voted (38)
Member Party Vote
Block — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Lara — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Evans — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huff — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Beall — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Knight — Yea
Leno — Yea
De León — Yea
Liu — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wright — Yea
Hill — Yea
Monning — Yea
Price — Not Voting
Walters — Not Voting
DeSaulnier — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Yee — Yea
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

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 SB 496 do?
(1) The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim for money or damages against the state. This bill would create an exception to the general procedure for a claim alleging a violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act. (2) The California Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits acts of reprisal, retaliation, coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or an applicant for state employment who made a protected disclosure relating to an improper governmental activity, as defined. The State Civil Service Act requires the State Personnel Board to initiate a hearing or investigation of a complaint of reprisal or retaliation in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act within 10 working days and the executive officer of the board to complete the findings of the hearing or investigation within 60 working days. The State Civil Service Act authorizes the executive officer to consolidate a case with the same or similar allegations to those contained in an appeal and exempts consolidated cases from the time limits for hearings, investigations, and findings. This bill would modify these requirements to instead require the board to render its decision on the consolidated matter within 6 months of the date of the order of consolidation, as specified. The bill would also make other technical changes. The act further authorizes the State Auditor to investigate and report whether it finds that a state agency or employee may have engaged or participated in an improper governmental activity. Under the act, any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or applicant for state employment for having made a disclosure that may evidence an improper governmental activity or dangerous condition is subject to, among other things, liability in an action for damages brought against him or her by the injured party. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of claims as a prerequisite to commencement of actions for money or damages against the State of California, counties, cities, cities and counties, districts, local authorities, and other political subdivisions of the state, and against the officers, employees, and servants of those entities. This bill would establish an exception for an action for damages pursuant to the California Whistleblower Protection Act from the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act. (3) Existing law prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Existing law prohibits any employer from retaliating against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency pursuant to these provisions or for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a state or federal statute or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Under existing law, an employer who violates these provisions is guilty of a crime. This bill would expand these provisions to prohibit an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of or noncompliance with a local rule or regulation. The bill would prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information to a government or law enforcement agency, or to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. The bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee for disclosing, or refusing to participate in an activity that would result in, a violation of or noncompliance with a local rule or regulation. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 666 and AB 263 that would become operative if this bill and either SB 666 or AB 263, or both, are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) Because this bill would change the definition of a crime, this 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 SB 496?
SB 496 is sponsored by Wright.
What is the current status of SB 496?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 21, 2013. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 496?
Track SB 496 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 496

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 SB 496

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →