California governor vetoes fair pay, E-Verify bills as state legislature ends 2009 session

For the third year in a row, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoed a bill (A.B. 793) modeled after the federal Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Introduced by Assemblymember Dave Jones (D-Sacramento), and rejecting the US Supreme Court’s holding in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co ( 89 EPD ¶42,827), the bill had stated that a complaint alleging compensation discrimination accrues when: (1) a compensation decision or other practice is adopted; (2) an individual becomes subject to a compensation decision or other practice; (3) an individual is affected by the application of a compensation decision or other practice, including each time when wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from the compensation decision or other practice.

This bill effectively reproduced the federal act to ensure that the state law remained consistent, clarifying that the time period for alleging pay discrimination claims runs from the date of each payment of a discriminatory wage.

In a September 4 statement, Jones said the bill was necessary to "ensure that state anti-discrimination laws are not weakened by the US Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter." Yet, in his October 11 veto message Schwarzenegger wrote: "[t]he bill seeks to address the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter [], which dealt with an interpretation of federal law. However, Congress has already abrogated this decision by enacting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act earlier this year.

Therefore, this bill is unnecessary as it addresses a decision that has been mooted by subsequent legislation that has no direct application in California. Moreover, as drafted, this measure is far more expansive than the federal lawand could pose unreasonable and unlimited liability for California employers.

Schwarzenegger also vetoed legislation (A.B. 1288) introduced by Assembylmember Paul Fong that would have prohibited the state or local governments from requiring employers, other than those that government entities, from using E-Verify except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Said Schwarzenegger: "[t]he bill would create administrative burdens for employers receiving government funds in that a June 6, 2008, federal Executive Order 12989, as amended, requires all federal contractors, as a condition of any future federal contract, to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of their workers.

"Employers receiving government funds would be required to sort out and identify complex funding streams and comply with both the Executive Order and provisions of this and other related laws. The bill also raises the potential for increased claims and litigation by placing new requirements in the Labor Code without also defining how the requirements will be enforced. Moreover, the bill implicates constitutional questions regarding the State’s authority to impose this prohibition against charter counties and cities for matters that may constitute municipal affairs."

Schwarzenegger only had until October 11 to act on the legislature’s passed bills, as California’s 2009 legislation session ended September 11, 2009, giving him 30 days to act on the bills that were passed.

Among the other legislation that Schwarzenegger vetoed was:

  • AB 943 – prohibiting the use of consumer credit reports for employment purposes unless the information is either substantially job related, as defined, or required by law to be disclosed to or obtained by the user of the report.

  • SB 257 – requiring every state agency and department, including local offices, when notified by a female employee that she is nearing maternity leave, to notify the employee of information regarding lactation accommodation on the Internet website of the Department of Public Health.

Both houses will reconvene the regular 2009-2010 legislative session on January 4, 2010.

Reprinted with permission. © CCH
(Submitted Oct. 20, 2009)

Rate this content:
 
The information contained in this document is for general, informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. This information is not a substitute for the guidance of a professional and should not be relied upon in reference to any specific situation without first seeking the advice of a qualified HR professional and/or legal counsel regarding applicable federal, state or local laws. HRTools, Administaff and their respective employees make no warranties, express or implied, and make no judgments regarding the accuracy of this content and/or its applicability to a specific situation. A reference or link to another website is not an endorsement of that site or service.