Prohibited discrimination against service members.
The bill significantly impacts state laws by broadening the scope of existing protections for service members. It aims to ensure that they are not only shielded from unfair treatment by private employers but also by local and state governmental entities. Additionally, it establishes criminal penalties and civil remedies for violations, effectively increasing accountability for discriminatory practices against those who serve in the military. The bill also clarifies the terms of collateral benefits for those incapacitated due to duty, ensuring they maintain certain employment benefits during their absence.
Assembly Bill No. 1710, approved on October 8, 2017, aims to enhance the protections against discrimination for service members of the military and naval forces in California. By amending Section 394 of the Military and Veterans Code, the bill extends the current prohibitions against employment discrimination specifically regarding terms, conditions, and privileges of employment for military personnel. This move reflects a commitment to safeguarding the rights of service members against injustices they might face as a result of their military service.
The sentiment surrounding AB 1710 appears largely positive, with support coming from various advocacy groups and legislators who emphasize the importance of protecting those who serve. This support is aimed at fostering an environment where military service is respected and where service members can work without fear of discrimination. However, some discussions may veer towards concern about how effectively such protections can be enforced and the dynamics between federal and state jurisdictions in military affairs.
Notably, the bill does not require the state to reimburse local agencies for the costs associated with its implementation, which could raise concerns among local governments about the financial implications. The provisions of AB 1710 are designed to operate in conjunction with changes proposed in Senate Bill 266, requiring careful legislative coordination. The interplay between these two bills may generate contention regarding the specifics of the implementation and the scope of rights being expanded through such legislation.