California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB2770

Introduced
2/16/18  
Refer
3/22/18  
Refer
3/22/18  
Report Pass
4/19/18  
Report Pass
4/19/18  
Refer
4/23/18  
Refer
4/23/18  
Report Pass
5/1/18  
Report Pass
5/1/18  
Engrossed
5/7/18  
Engrossed
5/7/18  
Refer
5/7/18  
Refer
5/17/18  
Refer
5/17/18  
Report Pass
6/13/18  
Report Pass
6/13/18  
Enrolled
6/25/18  
Chaptered
7/9/18  
Passed
7/9/18  

Caption

Privileged communications: communications by former employer: sexual harassment.

Impact

The modifications made by AB 2770 have significant implications for state laws, particularly in terms of how sexual harassment claims are treated legally in the workplace. By providing legal protection for employers when sharing information pertaining to harassment allegations, the bill seeks to encourage transparency and accountability, while simultaneously protecting the rights of individuals seeking to report such misconduct. This legislative change aims to create a more conducive environment for reporting workplace harassment without fear of legal repercussions for either party involved.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 2770, introduced by Irwin, amends Section 47 of the Civil Code concerning privileged communications, particularly in the context of complaints related to sexual harassment. The bill expands the definition of privileged communications to include complaints issued by employees regarding sexual harassment that are made, without malice and based on credible evidence, to employers. Additionally, it allows employers to respond, also without malice, regarding whether they would rehire an employee based on their assessment of the harassment allegations against that individual.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 2770 reflects a mix of support and concern. Proponents argue that the bill empowers employees to report misconduct by ensuring that their complaints will be treated seriously without exposing employers to unwarranted liability. Critics, however, express concerns that the bill could enable employers to shield themselves from facing legitimate harassment claims and jeopardize the legal protection of employees. Overall, this sentiment illustrates the ongoing debate in balancing employee protections with employer interests in maintaining a safe and professional workplace.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding AB 2770 stem from interpretations of the bill's provisions related to potential misuse of the privileged communication defense. Critics worry that this legal framework might allow employers to retaliate against employees who report harassment or dissuade future reporting, effectively undermining the very protections intended to support victims of workplace harassment. Discussions around the bill emphasize the importance of ensuring that while employers are shielded from frivolous or unfounded claims, the genuine concerns of employees are not overlooked and remain adequately protected within California's legal framework.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB933

Privileged communications: incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination.

CA AB1472

Personal rights: false reports to law enforcement.

CA AB1775

False reports and harassment.

CA AB3249

State Bar Act: attorneys: discipline: annual membership fee.

MI HB5749

Civil rights: public records; certain law enforcement disciplinary personnel records; require to be subject to freedom of information act requests. Amends sec. 13 of 1976 PA 442 (MCL 15.243).

CA AB354

Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

CA SB887

Consumer affairs.

CA SB222

Discrimination: veteran or military status.