California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 263 — Employment: retaliation: immigration-related practices.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 732, Statutes of 2013.

  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 07, 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 10 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

Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in prescribed protected conduct relating to the enforcement of the employee's or applicant's rights. Existing law provides that an employee who made a bona fide complaint, and was consequently discharged or otherwise suffered an adverse action, is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to willfully refuse to reinstate or otherwise restore an employee who is determined by a specified procedure to be eligible for reinstatement. This bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating or taking adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in protected conduct. The bill would expand the protected conduct to include a written or oral complaint by an employee that he or she is owed unpaid wages. The bill would provide that an employee who was retaliated against or otherwise was subjected to an adverse action is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. The bill would subject a person who violates these provisions to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. The bill would also provide that it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in the enforcement of specified provisions. Because the willful refusal by an employer to reinstate or reimburse an employee who suffered a retaliatory action under these provisions would be a misdemeanor, the bill would expand the scope of a crime and impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law declares that an individual who has applied for employment, or who is or has been employed in this state, is entitled to the protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, regardless of his or her immigration status. Existing law declares that an inquiry into a person's immigration status for purposes of enforcing state labor and employment laws shall not be permitted, unless a showing is made, by clear and convincing evidence, that the inquiry is necessary in order to comply with federal immigration law. This bill would make it unlawful for an employer or any other person to engage in, or direct another person to engage in, an unfair immigration-related practice, as defined, against a person for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliating against any person for exercising a right protected under state labor and employment laws or under a local ordinance applicable to employees, as specified. The bill would also create a rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 90 days of the exercising of a protected right is committed for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliation. The bill would authorize a civil action by an employee or other person who is the subject of an unfair immigration-related practice. The bill would authorize a court to order the appropriate government agencies to suspend certain business licenses held by the violating party for prescribed periods based on the number of violations. The bill would require the court to consider prescribed circumstances in determining whether a suspension of all licenses is appropriate. 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, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Existing law further prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for that disclosure. Under existing law, a violation of these provisions by the employer is a misdemeanor. Existing law additionally subjects an employer that is a corporation or a limited liability company to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of these provisions. This bill would additionally prohibit any person acting on behalf of the employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, as provided, and from retaliating against an employee for such a disclosure. The bill would also expand the prohibited actions to include preventing an employee from, or retaliating against an employee for, providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry. The bill would provide that any person or entity that violates these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor, and would further subject an entity that violates these provisions that is a corporation or limited liability company to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of these provisions. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits an employer or prospective employer, with the exception of certain financial institutions, from obtaining a consumer credit report, as defined, for employment purposes unless it is for a specified position, including, among others, a position in the state Department of Justice, a managerial position, as defined, or a position that involves regular access to $10,000 or more of cash, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating, retaliating, or taking any adverse action against an employee because the employee updates or attempts to update his or her personal information, unless the changes are directly related to the skill set, qualifications, or knowledge required for the job. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 496 that would become operative if this bill and SB 496 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 732, Statutes of 2013.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

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

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 54. Noes 19. Page 3075.).

  5. Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Ayes 53. Noes 25. Page 3064.)

  6. Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Ayes 53. Noes 25. Page 3064.)

  7. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 11 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  8. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 27. Noes 11. Page 2264.).

  9. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 30).

  11. In committee: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  12. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

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

  14. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (July 2).

  16. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 3. Noes 0.) (June 26). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  17. Referred to Coms. on L. & I.R. and JUD.

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

  19. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 52. Noes 23. Page 1737.)

  20. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  21. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  22. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.) (May 24).

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

  24. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (May 1). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  25. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (April 23). Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  26. (Pending re-referral to the Com. on L. & E.)

  27. Assembly Rule 56 suspended. (Page 1034.)

  28. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  30. Referred to Coms. on JUD. and L. & E.

  31. From printer. May be heard in committee March 10.

  32. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 8 voted No

Sponsors (1)

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

AB 263 HERNÁNDEZ Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 54 Yea · 19 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 501605
Democratic 4000
Republican 0300
Total 541905
% of votes cast 69%24%0%6%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Linder — Not Voting
Logue — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Nazarian — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Williams — Yea
Chávez — Not Voting
Daly — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Fong — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Holden — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Medina — Yea
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Campos — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Levine — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ting — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Weber — Yea
Conway — Nay
Allen — Not Voting
Nestande — Not Voting
Wilk — Not Voting
Donnelly — Nay
Fox — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Hall — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Jim Patterson — Nay
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 Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB263 Roger Hernández By Steinberg

Passed 27 Yea · 11 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 241101
Democratic 3000
Total 271101
% of votes cast 69%28%0%3%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Yea
Hill — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huff — Nay
Lara — Yea
Liu — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Cannella — Not Voting
Emmerson — Nay
Correa — Yea
Evans — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Wright — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Galgiani — Yea
Hancock — Yea
De León — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Block — Yea
Knight — Nay
Leno — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Steinberg — Yea
Torres — Yea
Vidak — Nay
Walters — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Yee — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 1000
Unaffiliated 4200
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Walters — Nay
Hill — Yea
De León — Yea
Lara — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

AB 263 HERNÁNDEZ Assembly Third Reading

Passed 52 Yea · 23 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 461804
Democratic 6100
Republican 0400
Total 522304
% of votes cast 66%29%0%5%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Nay
Buchanan — Yea
Holden — Not Voting
Linder — Not Voting
Maienschein — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Nazarian — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Weber — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Gorell — Not Voting
Hagman — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Chau — Yea
Logue — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Chávez — Nay
Conway — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nestande — Not Voting
Olsen — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Wilk — Nay
Fox — Yea
Campos — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Stone — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Levine — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Medina — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Daly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Pan — Yea
Perea — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ting — Yea
Williams — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Yamada — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Hall — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Nay
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 12 Yea · 4 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11401
Democratic 1000
Total 12401
% of votes cast 71%24%0%6%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Ammiano — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Linder — Not Voting
Pan — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Gomez — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Campos — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Donnelly — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Weber — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Hall — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

immigration 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 263 do?
Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in prescribed protected conduct relating to the enforcement of the employee's or applicant's rights. Existing law provides that an employee who made a bona fide complaint, and was consequently discharged or otherwise suffered an adverse action, is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to willfully refuse to reinstate or otherwise restore an employee who is determined by a specified procedure to be eligible for reinstatement. This bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating or taking adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in protected conduct. The bill would expand the protected conduct to include a written or oral complaint by an employee that he or she is owed unpaid wages. The bill would provide that an employee who was retaliated against or otherwise was subjected to an adverse action is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. The bill would subject a person who violates these provisions to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. The bill would also provide that it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in the enforcement of specified provisions. Because the willful refusal by an employer to reinstate or reimburse an employee who suffered a retaliatory action under these provisions would be a misdemeanor, the bill would expand the scope of a crime and impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law declares that an individual who has applied for employment, or who is or has been employed in this state, is entitled to the protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, regardless of his or her immigration status. Existing law declares that an inquiry into a person's immigration status for purposes of enforcing state labor and employment laws shall not be permitted, unless a showing is made, by clear and convincing evidence, that the inquiry is necessary in order to comply with federal immigration law. This bill would make it unlawful for an employer or any other person to engage in, or direct another person to engage in, an unfair immigration-related practice, as defined, against a person for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliating against any person for exercising a right protected under state labor and employment laws or under a local ordinance applicable to employees, as specified. The bill would also create a rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 90 days of the exercising of a protected right is committed for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliation. The bill would authorize a civil action by an employee or other person who is the subject of an unfair immigration-related practice. The bill would authorize a court to order the appropriate government agencies to suspend certain business licenses held by the violating party for prescribed periods based on the number of violations. The bill would require the court to consider prescribed circumstances in determining whether a suspension of all licenses is appropriate. 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, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Existing law further prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for that disclosure. Under existing law, a violation of these provisions by the employer is a misdemeanor. Existing law additionally subjects an employer that is a corporation or a limited liability company to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of these provisions. This bill would additionally prohibit any person acting on behalf of the employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, as provided, and from retaliating against an employee for such a disclosure. The bill would also expand the prohibited actions to include preventing an employee from, or retaliating against an employee for, providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry. The bill would provide that any person or entity that violates these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor, and would further subject an entity that violates these provisions that is a corporation or limited liability company to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of these provisions. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits an employer or prospective employer, with the exception of certain financial institutions, from obtaining a consumer credit report, as defined, for employment purposes unless it is for a specified position, including, among others, a position in the state Department of Justice, a managerial position, as defined, or a position that involves regular access to $10,000 or more of cash, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating, retaliating, or taking any adverse action against an employee because the employee updates or attempts to update his or her personal information, unless the changes are directly related to the skill set, qualifications, or knowledge required for the job. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 496 that would become operative if this bill and SB 496 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 263?
AB 263 is sponsored by Roger Hernández.
What is the current status of AB 263?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 07, 2013. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 263?
Track AB 263 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 263

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 263

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →