California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB353

Introduced
2/8/17  
Introduced
2/8/17  
Refer
2/21/17  
Refer
2/21/17  
Report Pass
3/22/17  
Report Pass
3/22/17  
Refer
3/22/17  
Refer
3/22/17  
Report Pass
4/20/17  
Report Pass
4/20/17  
Refer
4/20/17  
Refer
4/20/17  
Report Pass
5/1/17  
Refer
5/2/17  
Refer
5/2/17  
Refer
5/3/17  
Refer
5/3/17  
Report Pass
5/26/17  
Report Pass
5/26/17  
Engrossed
5/30/17  
Engrossed
5/30/17  
Refer
5/30/17  
Refer
5/30/17  
Refer
6/8/17  
Refer
6/8/17  
Report Pass
6/27/17  
Report Pass
6/27/17  
Refer
6/27/17  

Caption

Employment policy: voluntary veterans’ preference.

Impact

The enactment of AB 353 is poised to impact state laws by explicitly permitting the establishment of veterans preference policies by private employers. This aligns with the state’s ongoing efforts to support veterans through enhanced employment opportunities. The bill alters existing statutory provisions related to employment discrimination under the FEHA by clarifying the legal bounds within which veteran status can be factored into hiring decisions. Hence, employers can create written policies that do not violate anti-discrimination laws, thus encouraging the hiring of veterans in sectors where they might have been overlooked previously.

Summary

Assembly Bill 353, also known as the Voluntary Veterans Preference Employment Policy Act, amends the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to allow private employers to establish veterans preference employment policies. These policies can give voluntary preference to veterans in hiring and retention decisions, effectively enabling employers to prioritize veterans over other qualified candidates without violating any local or state equal employment opportunity laws. The bill signifies a shift towards recognizing and expanding employment opportunities for veterans, offering a formal pathway for employers to honor military service in their hiring practices.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 353 has been largely supportive among lawmakers and veteran advocacy groups. Proponents argue that the bill provides a necessary recognition of veterans' sacrifices and challenges faced during their reintegration into civilian life. However, some concerns have surfaced regarding potential unintended consequences, particularly the risk of conflicts with existing anti-discrimination protections. The dialogue reflects a broader discussion about the balance between prioritizing veteran employment and ensuring equitable access for all job seekers.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding AB 353 include commitments to non-discrimination and the potential for the misuse of veterans' preference policies. Critics are wary that while the bill facilitates the hiring of veterans, it needs stringent guidelines to prevent the marginalization of non-veteran applicants. Efforts to ensure that the veterans preference does not lead to reverse discrimination have been emphasized, ensuring the preference policies are utilized uniformly and do not negatively impact protected classifications such as race, gender, and disability status.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB665

Employment policy: voluntary veterans’ preference.

CA AB160

Employment policy: voluntary veterans’ preference.

CA AB1477

Veterans’ preferences: voluntary policy.

CA AB2043

Occupational safety and health: agricultural employers and employees: COVID-19 response.

CA SB1038

California Fair Employment and Housing Act: violations: personal liability.

CA AB170

Worker status: employees and independent contractors.

CA AB1556

Employment discrimination: unlawful employment practices.

CA AB1702

Employment.