California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

SB 358 — Conditions of employment: gender wage differential.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 546, Statutes of 2015.

  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 24, 2015. 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.

  • 17 sponsors

    1 primary, 16 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 regulates the payment of compensation to employees by employers and prohibits an employer from conditioning employment on requiring an employee to refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages, signing a waiver of the right to disclose the amount of those wages, or discriminating against an employee for making such a disclosure. Existing law generally prohibits an employer from paying an employee at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Existing law establishes exceptions to that prohibition where the payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any bona fide factor other than sex. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer or other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person to pay or cause to be paid to any employee a wage less than the rate paid to an employee of the opposite sex as required by these provisions, or who reduces the wages of any employee in order to comply with these provisions. This bill would revise that prohibition to eliminate the requirement that the wage differential be within the same establishment, and instead would prohibit an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than those paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, as specified. The bill would revise and recast the exceptions to require the employer to affirmatively demonstrate that a wage differential is based upon one or more specified factors, including a seniority system, a merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a bona fide factor other than sex, as specified. The bill would also require the employer to demonstrate that each factor relied upon is applied reasonably, and that the one or more factors relied upon account for the entire differential. The bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against, any employee by reason of any action taken by the employee to invoke or assist in any manner the enforcement of these provisions. The bill would authorize an employee who has been discharged or discriminated or retaliated against, in the terms and conditions of his or her employment because the employee engaged in any conduct delineated in these provisions, to recover in a civil action reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer, including interest thereon, as well as appropriate equitable relief. The bill would prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee from disclosing the employee's own wages, discussing the wages of others, inquiring about another employee's wages, or aiding or encouraging any other employee to exercise his or her rights under these provisions. The bill would also increase the duration of employer recordkeeping requirements from 2 years to 3 years. By changing 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 546, Statutes of 2015.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2299.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2299.)

  6. Reconsideration granted.

  7. Motion to reconsider made by Senator Jackson.

  8. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 2270.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  9. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  10. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 76. Noes 2. Page 2631.) Ordered to the Senate.

  11. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  12. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 19).

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

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

  15. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (June 24). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  16. Referred to Com. on L. & E.

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

  18. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1098.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  19. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  20. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 1033.) (May 18).

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

  22. Set for hearing May 18.

  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 5. Noes 1. Page 819.) (April 28).

  25. Set for hearing April 28.

  26. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  27. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 728.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

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

  29. Set for hearing April 22.

  30. Referred to Com. on L. & I.R.

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

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

Sponsors

  • Mitchell · Cosponsor
  • Chávez · Cosponsor
  • Chu · Cosponsor
  • Dodd · Cosponsor
  • Glazer · Cosponsor
  • Roger Hernández · Cosponsor
  • Eduardo Garcia · Cosponsor
  • Hancock · Cosponsor
  • Hall · Cosponsor
  • Hernandez · Cosponsor
  • Jackson · Primary
  • Leno · Cosponsor
  • Pavley · Cosponsor
  • Rodriguez · Cosponsor
  • Weber · Cosponsor
  • Lena A. Gonzalez · Cosponsor
  • Cristina Garcia · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 16 co-sponsors · 105 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Jackson

Co-sponsors (16)

Not signed on (105)

105 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 105 →

"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

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 37000
Democratic 3000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Roth — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Allen — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Runner — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huff — Yea
Leno — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Liu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Pan — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 37000
Democratic 3000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hall — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Allen — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Runner — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Yea
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Huff — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 76 Yea · 2 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 4000
Unaffiliated 67202
Republican 5000
Total 76202
% of votes cast 95%3%0%3%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Linder — Yea
Mathis — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Williams — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Frazier — Not Voting
Chávez — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Salas — Yea
Low — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Burke — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Gray — Yea
Levine — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Lopez — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Perea — Yea
Campos — Yea
Chang — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Achadjian — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brown — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chu — Yea
Baker — Yea
Brough — Nay
Hadley — Yea
Harper — Nay
Kim — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Obernolte — Not Voting
Quirk — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wood — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 17 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 13000
Democratic 2000
Republican 2000
Total 17000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Holden — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Chang — Yea
Daly — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 38 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 35001
Democratic 3000
Total 38001
% of votes cast 97%0%0%3%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Hill — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huff — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Allen — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Runner — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hall — Not Voting
Hernandez — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Pan — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 5 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5002
Total 5002
% of votes cast 71%0%0%29%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Not Voting
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Beall — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

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 358 do?
Existing law regulates the payment of compensation to employees by employers and prohibits an employer from conditioning employment on requiring an employee to refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages, signing a waiver of the right to disclose the amount of those wages, or discriminating against an employee for making such a disclosure. Existing law generally prohibits an employer from paying an employee at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Existing law establishes exceptions to that prohibition where the payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any bona fide factor other than sex. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer or other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person to pay or cause to be paid to any employee a wage less than the rate paid to an employee of the opposite sex as required by these provisions, or who reduces the wages of any employee in order to comply with these provisions. This bill would revise that prohibition to eliminate the requirement that the wage differential be within the same establishment, and instead would prohibit an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than those paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, as specified. The bill would revise and recast the exceptions to require the employer to affirmatively demonstrate that a wage differential is based upon one or more specified factors, including a seniority system, a merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a bona fide factor other than sex, as specified. The bill would also require the employer to demonstrate that each factor relied upon is applied reasonably, and that the one or more factors relied upon account for the entire differential. The bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against, any employee by reason of any action taken by the employee to invoke or assist in any manner the enforcement of these provisions. The bill would authorize an employee who has been discharged or discriminated or retaliated against, in the terms and conditions of his or her employment because the employee engaged in any conduct delineated in these provisions, to recover in a civil action reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer, including interest thereon, as well as appropriate equitable relief. The bill would prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee from disclosing the employee's own wages, discussing the wages of others, inquiring about another employee's wages, or aiding or encouraging any other employee to exercise his or her rights under these provisions. The bill would also increase the duration of employer recordkeeping requirements from 2 years to 3 years. By changing 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 358?
SB 358 is sponsored by Mitchell, Chávez, Chu, Dodd, Glazer, Roger Hernández, Eduardo Garcia, Hancock, Hall, Hernandez, Jackson, Leno, Pavley, Rodriguez, Weber, Gonzalez, Lena A. (Democratic), and Cristina Garcia.
What is the current status of SB 358?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 24, 2015. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 358?
Track SB 358 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 358

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.

Stay ahead of SB 358

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →