Employment discrimination: limitation of actions.
The primary impact of AB9 is the alteration of the statute of limitations for filing complaints related to employment discrimination. By allowing a three-year period instead of a one-year period, the bill acknowledges that many victims may need more time to gather evidence, consult legal counsel, or even process their experiences before pursuing action against perpetrators of discrimination. This change is expected to improve accessibility to justice for aggrieved individuals while promoting a more inclusive work environment.
Assembly Bill No. 9 (AB9), introduced by Assemblymember Reyes, amends sections of the Government Code concerning the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to enhance protections against employment discrimination. The bill extends the timeframe for individuals to file verified complaints from one year to three years after the occurrence of an unlawful practice. This amendment aims to provide a larger window for victims of employment discrimination to seek justice and ensure that they can present their cases even if significant time has elapsed since the alleged incident.
The sentiment surrounding AB9 is generally positive among advocates for workers' rights and those concerned with equality and non-discrimination in the workplace. Supporters argue that extending the complaint period helps to level the playing field for those who may have delayed recognition of the discrimination they have faced. However, there are opponents who express concerns about the increasing burden on employers who may face prolonged risks of litigation due to extended filing timelines.
Notable points of contention about AB9 revolve around potential misuse of the extended filing period. Critics fear that a longer timeframe might lead to challenges in defending against old claims where evidence may not be available and memories may fade over time. Additionally, there are concerns regarding the implications for business operations, as companies could face uncertainty regarding past discriminatory practices that would otherwise have been resolved sooner under the previous limitations. Opponents argue for a balanced approach that protects employee rights without imposing undue burdens on employers.