California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

SB 666 — Employment: retaliation.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 577, Statutes of 2013.

Track this bill free

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

  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 22, 2013. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 82% · 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.

  • 7 sponsors

    1 primary, 6 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • 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 establishes grounds for suspension or revocation of certain business and professional licenses. This bill would subject those business licenses to suspension or revocation, with a specified exception, if the licensee has been determined by the Labor Commissioner or the court to have violated specified law and the court or Labor Commissioner has taken into consideration any harm such a suspension or revocation would cause to employees of the licensee, as well as the good faith efforts of the licensee to resolve any alleged violations after receiving notice. The bill would subject a licensee of an agency within the Department of Consumer Affairs who has been found by the Labor Commissioner or the court to have violated specified law to disciplinary action by his or her respective licensing agency. The State Bar Act establishes specific causes for the disbarment or suspension of a member of the State Bar. This bill would make it a cause for suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for any member of the State Bar to report suspected immigration status or threaten to report suspected immigration status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative action or his or her family member, as defined, to a federal, state, or local agency because the witness or party exercises or has exercised a right related to his or her employment. Existing law establishes various rights and protections relating to employment and civil rights that may be enforced by civil action. This bill would provide that it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in order to bring a civil action enforcing designated rights. Under the bill, reporting or threatening to report an employee's, former employee's, or prospective employee's suspected citizenship or immigration status, or the suspected citizenship or immigration status of the employee's or former employee's family member, as defined, to a federal, state, or local agency because the employee, former employee, or prospective employee exercises a designated right would constitute an adverse action for purposes of establishing a violation of the designated right. Because a violation of certain of those designated rights is a misdemeanor, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by changing the definition of a crime. 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 makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to take adverse employment action against employees who file bona fide complaints. This bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating or taking any 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 subject an employer to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation of these provisions. Existing law entitles an employee to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and benefits if the employee has been discharged, demoted, suspended, or in any way discriminated against because the employee engaged in protected conduct or because the employee made a bona fide complaint or claim or initiated any action or notice, as prescribed. This bill would similarly grant these entitlements to an employee who is retaliated against or subjected to an adverse action. 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 such a disclosure. Under existing law, a violation of these provisions by an employer is a crime. 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 would extend those prohibitions to 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. Because a violation of these provisions by an employer would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 577, Statutes of 2013.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 5 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 32. Noes 2. Page 2297.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 52. Noes 17. Page 2998.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended. (Page 2868.)

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

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

  11. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 1.) (August 21).

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

  13. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 18). Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

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

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

  17. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 31. Noes 7. Page 1107.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  18. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  19. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 1018.) (May 23).

  20. Set for hearing May 23.

  21. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  22. Set for hearing May 20.

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

  24. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1. Page 754.) (April 30).

  25. Set for hearing April 30.

  26. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 664.) (April 24). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  27. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. & I.R.

  28. Set for hearing April 24.

  29. Re-referred to Coms. on L. & I.R. and JUD.

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

  31. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  32. Read first time.

  33. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 26.

  34. Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Beall · Cosponsor
  • Evans · Cosponsor
  • Hueso · Cosponsor
  • Jackson · Cosponsor
  • Monning · Cosponsor
  • Steinberg · Primary
  • Stephen C. Padilla · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 6 co-sponsors · 115 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Steinberg

Co-sponsors (6)

Not signed on (115)

115 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 115 →

"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

Passed 32 Yea · 2 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 29205
Democratic 3000
Total 32205
% of votes cast 82%5%0%13%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huff — Not Voting
Lieu — Yea
Nielsen — Not Voting
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Wright — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Evans — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
De León — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Knight — Nay
Anderson — Nay
Hill — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Torres — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Fuller — Not Voting
Yee — Yea
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

SB 666 Steinberg Senate Third Reading By HERNÁNDEZ

Passed 52 Yea · 17 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 481409
Democratic 4000
Republican 0300
Total 521709
% of votes cast 67%22%0%12%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Bigelow — Not Voting
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Not Voting
Linder — Not Voting
Maienschein — Nay
Morrell — Not Voting
Nazarian — Yea
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Fong — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Campos — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Hall — Not Voting
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Levine — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Logue — Nay
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Conway — Nay
Cooley — Yea
Daly — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Nestande — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Ting — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Williams — Yea
Allen — Not Voting
Mansoor — Not Voting
Chávez — Not Voting
Dickinson — Yea
Fox — Not Voting
Frazier — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gorell — 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 →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 12 Yea · 1 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11104
Democratic 1000
Total 12104
% of votes cast 71%6%0%24%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Linder — Not Voting
Weber — Yea
Campos — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Harkey — Not Voting
Holden — Yea
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wagner — Not Voting
Bigelow — Not Voting
Bradford — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Hall — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 31 Yea · 7 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 28701
Democratic 3000
Total 31701
% of votes cast 79%18%0%3%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Huff — Not Voting
Lara — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wright — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Hancock — Yea
De León — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Correa — Yea
Knight — Nay
Leno — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Liu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Price — Yea
Roth — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Walters — Nay
Emmerson — Yea
Evans — Yea
Wyland — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Fuller — Nay
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.

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 →

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 666 do?
Existing law establishes grounds for suspension or revocation of certain business and professional licenses. This bill would subject those business licenses to suspension or revocation, with a specified exception, if the licensee has been determined by the Labor Commissioner or the court to have violated specified law and the court or Labor Commissioner has taken into consideration any harm such a suspension or revocation would cause to employees of the licensee, as well as the good faith efforts of the licensee to resolve any alleged violations after receiving notice. The bill would subject a licensee of an agency within the Department of Consumer Affairs who has been found by the Labor Commissioner or the court to have violated specified law to disciplinary action by his or her respective licensing agency. The State Bar Act establishes specific causes for the disbarment or suspension of a member of the State Bar. This bill would make it a cause for suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for any member of the State Bar to report suspected immigration status or threaten to report suspected immigration status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative action or his or her family member, as defined, to a federal, state, or local agency because the witness or party exercises or has exercised a right related to his or her employment. Existing law establishes various rights and protections relating to employment and civil rights that may be enforced by civil action. This bill would provide that it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in order to bring a civil action enforcing designated rights. Under the bill, reporting or threatening to report an employee's, former employee's, or prospective employee's suspected citizenship or immigration status, or the suspected citizenship or immigration status of the employee's or former employee's family member, as defined, to a federal, state, or local agency because the employee, former employee, or prospective employee exercises a designated right would constitute an adverse action for purposes of establishing a violation of the designated right. Because a violation of certain of those designated rights is a misdemeanor, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by changing the definition of a crime. 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 makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to take adverse employment action against employees who file bona fide complaints. This bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating or taking any 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 subject an employer to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation of these provisions. Existing law entitles an employee to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and benefits if the employee has been discharged, demoted, suspended, or in any way discriminated against because the employee engaged in protected conduct or because the employee made a bona fide complaint or claim or initiated any action or notice, as prescribed. This bill would similarly grant these entitlements to an employee who is retaliated against or subjected to an adverse action. 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 such a disclosure. Under existing law, a violation of these provisions by an employer is a crime. 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 would extend those prohibitions to 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. Because a violation of these provisions by an employer would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 SB 666?
SB 666 is sponsored by Beall, Evans, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Steinberg, and Padilla, Stephen C. (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 666?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 22, 2013. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 666?
Track SB 666 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 666

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 666

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →