Education: sex equity.
Summary
Existing federal law, known as Title IX, prohibits a person, on the basis of sex, from being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subject to discrimination, which includes sexual harassment, under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, and the Sex Equity in Education Act establish, among other things, that it is the policy of the State of California that all persons, regardless of their sex, should enjoy freedom from discrimination of any kind in the educational institutions of the state. Specified provisions of law relating to educational equity in schools, including the Equity in Education Act and the Equity in Higher Education Act, define, in the same way, "sexual harassment" for the purposes of their respective provisions. Based on federal regulations, this bill would define "sexual harassment" to include "sexual violence," as defined, for the purposes of those state laws. The bill would, among other things, require the appropriate governing board or body of each elementary and secondary school that receives state financial assistance, and the appropriate governing board or body of each higher education institution that receives state funds for student financial assistance, to, as a condition of receiving that financial assistance, comply with certain requirements, based on federal regulations. The bill would express the intent of the Legislature that each local educational agency, and would require the appropriate governing board or body of each higher education institution that receives state funds for student financial assistance to, designate at least one employee to act as a sex equity coordinator or officer, as applicable. The bill would require, on or before July 1, 2018, the appropriate governing board or body of each higher education institution that receives state funds for student financial assistance to, as a condition of receiving that financial assistance, adopt regulations to, among other things, ensure that implementation of the applicable provisions of the bill at the institution is, to the greatest extent possible, consistent with federal regulations. By imposing new duties on school districts, 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Jan 2017
Committee Review
Sep 2017
Senate Passage
May 2017
Assembly Passage
Sep 2017
Vetoed
Mar 2018
Introduced Jan 23, 2017
Vetoed Mar 3, 2018
Floor votes · Senate May 31, 2017 · Assembly Sep 13, 2017
How they voted
24–8
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 35
May 31, 2017
D
Democratic25
96% Yea
R
Republican10
80% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
42
Key actions
11
Committee
12
Amendments
2
Mar 3, 2018
Vetoed
Last day to consider Governor’s veto pursuant to Joint Rule 58.5.
upper
Oct 15, 2017
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Oct 15, 2017
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Sep 14, 2017
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 28. Noes 10. Page 2924.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Sep 14, 2017
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Sep 13, 2017
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (57-10-6)
assembly
Sep 8, 2017
Lower · Passed
Read third time and amended.
lower
Sep 1, 2017
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 5.) (September 1).
lower
Jul 12, 2017
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 2.) (July 11). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 28, 2017
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HIGHER ED. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) (June 27). Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED.
lower
Jun 19, 2017
Committee
Re-referred to Coms. on JUD. and HIGHER ED. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.
lower
Jun 15, 2017
Committee
Referred to Coms. on HIGHER ED. and JUD.
lower
May 31, 2017
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (24-8-3)
senate
May 25, 2017
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 1178.) (May 25).
upper
May 3, 2017
Upper · Passed
May 8 hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Apr 26, 2017
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 851.) (April 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 20, 2017
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 782.) (April 19). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Mar 29, 2017
Committee
Re-referred to Coms. on ED. and JUD.
upper
Feb 2, 2017
Committee
Referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Jan 23, 2017
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 4 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 169
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 169. 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