Assembly approves bill to protect workers who make sexual harassment claims

SACRAMENTO — Employers would be barred from firing a worker without cause within 90 days of a sexual harassment claim under a bill passed by the Assembly.

AB 171 would extend a prohibition on firing a worker immediately following sexual assault, domestic violence or stalking if the worker notifies the employer of the allegation. It would also add a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation for an employee let go within 90 days of any of these events.

Speaking on the Assembly floor Thursday, the bill’s author said she was motivated in part by apparent class differences in how women respond to sexual harassment. Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, said middle class women are more likely than working class women to sue over harassment.

She also noted many working class women work jobs with irregular hours, making them more vulnerable to more subtle forms of harassment like reduced hours or inconvenient shifts.

“If you file a lawsuit, you’re actually protected from retaliation, and that’s a great thing,” Gonzalez said. “But last year when we went around the state and talked to working class women, we found that most of them don’t want to file a lawsuit. They just want the behavior to stop.”

The changes contained in AB 171 were also included in another Gonzalez bill from last year. Former Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed AB 3081. But in his veto message, Brown cited other provisions not contained in the new legislation: “a new, ill-defined standard of joint liability between labor contractors and client employers.”

Speaking in favor of the bill, Assemblywoman Eloise Gomez Reyes, D-Grand Terrace, said the bill won’t stop employers from firing workers for cause.

“If the employer has good reason for terminating the worker, all they have to do is present the evidence,” said Reyes, a civil rights attorney.

The bill is opposed by a coalition of more than 50 business groups. An opposition letter from the Valley Industry and Commerce Association laid out one frequent argument against AB 171: that workers who “anticipate being terminated” for cause will preemptively file harassment complaints.

“This perverse incentive distorts the process and harms actual victims of sexual harassment, many of whom are already dissuaded from reporting harassment due to the fear that they won’t be believed,” the letter argues.

But bill supporters note there already numerous examples of rebuttable presumption standards in state labor law. These include prohibitions on employers denying the use of sick time or calling immigration authorities in response to a labor dispute or grievance.

A spokeswoman for the California Chamber of Commerce, which has coordinated much of the opposition, said she was traveling and not able to comment. However, she shared an opposition letter stating that the bill creates an unfair “presumption against the employer.”

The letter also argued the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act already contains sufficient protections. Finally, they object to adding provisions to the state Labor Code and exposing employers to suits under the Private Attorney General Act. Opponents say any changes should be part of the act, which is under the Government Code.

However, an Assembly Judiciary Committee analysis from April dismissed a claim in the letter that the way the law would be written into the Labor Code would have the effect of extending the statute of limitations for civil claims of sexual harassment, stating, “The basis of this claim is not entirely clear.”