SB 496 California Senate · 2013-2014 Regular Session

Improper governmental activity: disclosure: protection.

Summary
(1) The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim for money or damages against the state. This bill would create an exception to the general procedure for a claim alleging a violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act. (2) The California Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits acts of reprisal, retaliation, coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or an applicant for state employment who made a protected disclosure relating to an improper governmental activity, as defined. The State Civil Service Act requires the State Personnel Board to initiate a hearing or investigation of a complaint of reprisal or retaliation in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act within 10 working days and the executive officer of the board to complete the findings of the hearing or investigation within 60 working days. The State Civil Service Act authorizes the executive officer to consolidate a case with the same or similar allegations to those contained in an appeal and exempts consolidated cases from the time limits for hearings, investigations, and findings. This bill would modify these requirements to instead require the board to render its decision on the consolidated matter within 6 months of the date of the order of consolidation, as specified. The bill would also make other technical changes. The act further authorizes the State Auditor to investigate and report whether it finds that a state agency or employee may have engaged or participated in an improper governmental activity. Under the act, any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or applicant for state employment for having made a disclosure that may evidence an improper governmental activity or dangerous condition is subject to, among other things, liability in an action for damages brought against him or her by the injured party. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of claims as a prerequisite to commencement of actions for money or damages against the State of California, counties, cities, cities and counties, districts, local authorities, and other political subdivisions of the state, and against the officers, employees, and servants of those entities. This bill would establish an exception for an action for damages pursuant to the California Whistleblower Protection Act from the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act. (3) Existing law prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Existing law prohibits any employer from retaliating against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency pursuant to these provisions or for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a state or federal statute or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Under existing law, an employer who violates these provisions is guilty of a crime. This bill would expand these provisions to prohibit an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of or noncompliance with a local rule or regulation. The bill would prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information to a government or law enforcement agency, or to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. The bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee for disclosing, or refusing to participate in an activity that would result in, a violation of or noncompliance with a local rule or regulation. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 666 and AB 263 that would become operative if this bill and either SB 666 or AB 263, or both, are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) Because this bill would change the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status signed all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2013
Committee Review
Sep 2013
Senate Passage
May 2013
Assembly Passage
Sep 2013
Signed into Law
Oct 2013
Introduced Feb 21, 2013 Signed Oct 12, 2013
Floor votes · Senate Sep 12, 2013 · Assembly Sep 10, 2013

How they voted

39–0
Passed
Total votes 39
Sep 12, 2013
D Democratic27
27 Yea
100% Yea
R Republican12
12 Yea
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
30
Key actions
13
Committee
12
Amendments
1
Oct 12, 2013
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 12, 2013
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (39-0)
senate
Sep 11, 2013
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 2370.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Sep 10, 2013
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (74-0-2)
assembly
Sep 10, 2013
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Jul 3, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 13. Noes 2.) (July 3).
lower
Jun 25, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 25, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 18, 2013
Lower · Passed
Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Jun 11, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Jun 5, 2013
Lower · Passed
Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
May 24, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
May 6, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Apr 23, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 643.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 15, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on P.E. & R.
upper
Mar 11, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on P.E. & R.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Photo of Roderick Wright
Roderick Wright
DDemocratic
CA
35