Bills inspired by #MeToo signed by governor
Governor approves several bills that help protect victims of sex assault, harassment.
Gov. Jerry Brown gives the green light to a slate of measures drawing attention to sexual misconduct.
SACRAMENTO — The #MeToo movement has now made its mark on California law, with Gov. Jerry Brown signing a number of bills Sunday that were introduced following an outpouring of attention to sexual harassment and misconduct.
Among the bills approved by Brown was a measure to prohibit settlement agreements that prevent the disclosure of facts related to sexual assault, sexual harassment or workplace discrimination.
The measure, Senate Bill 820 by state Sen. Connie M. Leyva (D-Chino Hills), was inspired by reports that Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein used nondisclosure agreements and settlements to resolve harassment complaints. The settlements inhibited accusers from speaking publicly about their encounters with Weinstein.
Leyva’s bill will allow a complainant to request provisions in settlement agreements to shield his or her identity.
Business groups oppose the measure, arguing that confidentiality in such agreements could be necessary. In a letter to Brown requesting a veto, a coalition of business groups wrote, “by potentially eliminating confidentiality, SB 820 exposes employers to a public presumption of guilt even though the decision to settle was not based upon merit at all. To avoid this public image of guilt, SB 820 will drive employers to fight these cases in court instead of resulting in an early resolution.”
Brown also approved SB 1300 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), which will expand anti-harassment provisions in state law, including limiting the use of nondisparagement agreements that prevent employees from speaking publicly about incidents in the workplace.
The measure will largely prohibit employers from making their workers sign nondisparagement agreements in exchange for employment, a bonus or a raise. Nondisparagement agreements have come under scrutiny for preventing workers from speaking publicly if sexual harassment or other illegal acts occur in the workplace.
The bill also will make clear to judges that a single incidence of harassment could be sufficient to satisfy the “severe and pervasive” legal standard of sexual harassment if it severely affects the employee’s work performance or creates a hostile work environment.
Responding to pushback from business groups, Jackson narrowed her bill — instead of requiring employers to train workers on how to act if they are bystanders to sexual harassment, for example, the measure simply allows such training.
The California Chamber of Commerce removed its “job killer” label from the bill but remained opposed, arguing its provisions “will significantly increase litigation against California employers and limit their ability to invest in their workforce.”
Brown also signed SB 1343 by state Sen. Holly J. Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), which will expand sexual harassment prevention training requirements to more businesses in the state.
But Brown vetoed a pair of #MeToo-inspired bills on Sunday that would have made it easier to take sexual harassment complaints to court.
One measure, Assembly Bill 3080, sought to end the practice of employers requiring workers to use private arbitration instead of the courts to air out sexual harassment complaints.
Arbitration is one of several ways businesses can opt to settle disputes outside the courts. The practice has come under scrutiny as a way to shield complaints of improper workplace behavior from public view and protect harassers from accountability.
The measure, by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-San Diego), would have banned employers from requiring employees to waive their right to sue as a condition of employment. The bill would not have barred workers from voluntarily opting for arbitration agreements. The bill also would have limited the use of nondisparagement agreements that would prevent an employee from disclosing instances of sexual harassment.
Brown referenced his rejection of a similar bill from 2015 in Sunday’s veto message and an arbitration ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The direction from the Supreme Court since my earlier veto has been clear — states must follow the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Act,” Brown wrote. He called any policy like AB 3080 “impermissible.”
A second proposal, AB 1870 by Assemblywoman Eloise Gomez Reyes (D-Grand Terrace), was one of the first bills to be introduced after the #MeToo movement last fall. The bill would have extended the filing deadline for Californians to file employment discrimination complaints — including sexual harassment claims — with the state.
California workers currently have one year from the date of harassment or other unlawful action occurred to file a complaint with the state’s civil rights agency. Under the measure, that timeframe would have increased to three years.
Brown said in his veto that the one-year deadline “not only encourages prompt resolution while memories and evidence are fresh, but also ensures that unwelcome behavior is promptly reported and halted.”
The bill passed by a comfortable margin in both houses with bipartisan support.