Proposed CA Law

[JALU3]

?Tu Habla (Insert any language here)? (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/04/english-only.html)

State Senate approves bill banning language discrimination
1:04 PM | April 16, 2009
Alarmed that a professional golf association proposed to exclude competitors who don’t speak English, the state Senate acted today to prohibit businesses in California from discriminating against customers, including refusing them service, based on the language they use.

The Ladies Professional Golf Assn. last year backed down from a policy that would have suspended golfers who do not speak adequate English on the premise that language fluency in speeches and media interviews was critical to the sport's promotion efforts.

The golfers were considered "patrons" of the LPGA, not employees.

State Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) said the policy raised an issue that required changes to state civil rights laws that already protect employees from discrimination based on language.

"I don’t understand the connection between speaking English and playing golf," Yee said on the Senate floor. "This is really about protecting our ability to speak the language that we wish."

Yee recalled as a young boy going to a San Francisco hardware store with an uncle who was mistreated because of his lack of proficiency in English.

SB 242, which now goes to the Assembly, was approved on a 21-15 vote, with Republican lawmakers opposed based on concern it would open businesses up to a rash of civil rights lawsuits if customers felt they did not get good service.

So how far will this extend upon the ability of businesses to choose whom they wish to conduct business with? What new litigation will this create? Is this the wisest legal proposal to persue, regardless of the present economic situation?

[Platapus]

The McGreevy is not accurately reporting on this issue. The State Senate has not passed this bill, a Senate committee passed it to the next level of Senatorial review. Mr. McGreevy is counting on the fact that few people understand the levels of committees that a bill needs to "pass" before it comes up for the final vote.

I would not get too worried about this. As the bill is worded

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_242_bill_20090224_introduced.html

1. The wording in Section 1 of the proposed bill is poorly written and I seriously doubt it would pass any final vote in the subsequent State Senate review committees.

2. The proposed bill, just restates what is already in the existing Unruth Act and the Ralph Act. So there will be no change from existing legislations.

What the Unruth, Ralph, and the proposed Yee act are stating is that it would be a violation of civil law for any business to establish a policy requiring the use of, or prohibiting the use of any specific language in the business.

The differences between the Unruth and Ralph Acts (they are usually grouped together) and the proposed Yee Act is that the Unruth/Ralph Acts pertain to policies between business owners and employees whereas the Yee Act does not state this.

One can infer (and I am sure that this is Yee's intent) is that if the Yee act passes, the language constraints will apply to the relationship between business owners and the business customers. However, the law has recognized there there is a significant difference between Employer/employee relationships and employer/customer relationships. They are not the same!

As poorly written, this simply won't fly. While the US Supreme Court has not entered any opinion on this issue, State Supreme Courts, around the country, have struck down various laws requiring private business owners to have translators on their staff. A moments reflection should indicate that this would place an unreasonable expensive requirement on small business owners.

It is only government entities that have the responsibility (and expense) to provide translation services without any cost to the individual (other than taxes).

State Senator Yee has the right to propose any legislation he wants. That does not mean it will pass.

As it is written now, the Yee Act has some serious wording issues (section 1).

If this issue concerns anyone, I would recommend they follow the State Senatorial records for this act (cited above) and wait until a few more committees get their changes in.

Senator Yee may have good intentions, but he needs some serious help in drafting up legislation wording.

[August]

As Paul Harvey would have said: "Now you know the rest.....of the story"

[SteamWake]

I thought this was going to be about the legislation on TV power consumption.

You big screen TV owners in Cali... shame on you !