Civil rights: language restrictions.
Summary
The Unruh Civil Rights Act generally prohibits business establishments from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition. The act provides civil remedies for violations of its provisions. Under the California Fair Employment Housing Act, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to adopt or enforce a policy that prohibits the use of any language in the workplace, except if that policy is justified by business necessity, as defined, and prescribed notice of the policy and consequences for violation of the policy is given to employees. This bill would make it a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act to adopt or enforce a policy that requires, limits, or prohibits the use of any language in or with a business establishment, unless the policy is justified by a business necessity, as defined, and notification has been provided of the circumstances and the time when the language restriction or requirement is to be observed and of the consequences for its violation. The bill would define business necessity to require, among other things, that the language restriction or requirement is necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the business and that an equally effective, but less discriminatory, alternative practice does not exist. The bill would provide for an award of damages, and attorney's fees as may be determined by the court, for a violation of its provisions.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Jul 2009
Senate Passage
Apr 2009
Assembly Passage
Aug 2009
Vetoed
Oct 2009
Introduced Feb 24, 2009
Vetoed Oct 11, 2009
Floor votes · Senate Apr 16, 2009 · Assembly Aug 20, 2009
How they voted
21–15
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 39
Apr 16, 2009
D
Democratic24
87% Yea
R
Republican15
100% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
23
Key actions
5
Committee
2
Amendments
2
Oct 11, 2009
Vetoed
In Senate. To unfinished business. (Veto)
upper
Oct 11, 2009
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
upper
Sep 2, 2009
Introduced
Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 21. Noes 12. Page 2117.) To enrollment.
upper
Aug 20, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (44-25-4)
assembly
Jul 13, 2009
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on June 30.)
lower
Jul 13, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.)
lower
Apr 16, 2009
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (21-15-3)
senate
Mar 31, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 3. Noes 2. Page 383.)
upper
Feb 24, 2009
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Leland Yee
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 242
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 242. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline