BILL ANALYSIS SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses 1020 N Street, Suite 524 (916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) 327-4478 . THIRD READING . Bill No: AB 1100 Author: Speier (D) Amended: 8/31/95 in Senate Vote: 21 . SENATE BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 7/10/95 AYES: Ayala, Craven, Greene, Rosenthal, Boatwright NOES: Kelley NOT VOTING: Killea, O'Connell, Johannessen SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/22/95 AYES: Campbell, Lockyer, Mello, O'Connell, Petris, Solis, Calderon NOT VOTING: Wright, Leslie ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 41-35, 6/2/95 - See last page for vote . SUBJECT: Civil rights: gender-based discrimination SOURCE: Author . DIGEST: This bill prohibits gender-based discrimination in the pricing of services. ANALYSIS: Existing law prohibits a business establishment from discriminating against a person because of the sex of the person, and specifies the remedies for a violation of this provision. Specifically, existing law: 1. Known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA), states that all persons within the jurisdiction of the state are CONTINUED AB 1100 Page 2 entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services in all business establishments, regardless of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin or disability. 2. Provides for remedies (e.g., actual damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and injunctive relief) for violations of the UCRA which may be sought through the filing of a civil action by the Attorney General, a district attorney, city attorney or any aggrieved person against anyone who denies, or aids, or incites a denial of rights. This bill: 1. Known as the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, provides that no business establishment may discriminate, with respect to the price charged for services of a similar or like kind, because of the person's gender. Insurance rating practices and health service plans are specifically excluded from the prohibitions against discrimination in this bill. 2. Provides limited remedies (as prescribed in current law) for violations of the provisions of the act, which may be sought through filing a civil suit wherein actual damages and attorney fees may be awarded. Comments The Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection, Governmental Efficiency and Economic Development held an interim hearing in 1994 on "Gender Discrimination in the Pricing and Availability of Products and Services." According to the author, data collected in conjunction with that hearing documents that adult women effectively pay a gender tax which costs each woman approximately $1,351 annually, or about $15 billion for all women in California. The gender tax is the additional amount women pay for similar goods and services due to gender-based discrimination in pricing. According to the Assembly policy committee analysis, gender-based discrimination in pricing has been documented in the following books, studies and reports: "Gender-Based CONTINUED AB 1100 Page 3 Discrimination in the Laundry Business," (Public Law Research Institute, 1987); "Gypped by Gender," (NYC Department of Consumer Affairs, 1992); "Why Women Pay More," (Center for Study of Responsive Law, 1993); "A Survey of Haircuts & Laundry Services in California," (Assembly Office of Research [AOR], 1994), which found that women in California pay on the average $5 more for a haircut and $1.71 more to have a shirt laundered. The AOR survey also found that 64 percent of those establishments surveyed in five major California cities charged more to launder a woman's white cotton shirt than a man's. According to the Senate Business and Professions Committee, while it could be argued that the UCRA already prohibits gender-based price discrimination, the only published California case which relies on the UCRA to disallow price discrimination does so in the narrow context of special discounts for "Ladies Night" at a bar, and "Ladies Day" at a car wash. In 1905, Section 51 of the Civil Code stated that all "citizens" were entitled to full and equal accommodations and privileges at most businesses. Section 51 was expanded to cover public conveyances in 1919, and refreshment stands in 1923. In 1959, race, color, religion, ancestry and national origin were specified as protected classes; additionally, the scope of services included within the law was expanded to cover "all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." "Citizen" was replaced by "person" in 1961. In 1974, UCRA prohibitions against discrimination were extended to include gender, and in 1992 disabilities. In general, as particular types of discrimination were recognized as unjust, they were disallowed through statute. Prior Legislation AB 2418 (Speier, 1994) would have prohibited gender discrimination in pricing of goods and services, but was vetoed. The Governor's objections to AB 2418 have been addressed in this bill, which now (1) only applies to services, not products; (2) specifically allows for differences in prices based on differences in services provided; and (3) amends the Civil Code, instead of the Business and Professions Code. CONTINUED AB 1100 Page 4 AB 2418 passed the Senate 21-13 (Noes: Beverly, Hurtt, Johannessen, Kelley, Leonard, Leslie, Lewis, Maddy, Peace, Rogers, Russell, Wright, Wyman). SB 1288 (Calderon, Chapter 535, Statutes of 1994) directs the Department of Consumer Affairs to send notices to cosmetologists regarding what constitutes illegal pricing practices. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No CONTINUED AB 1100 Page 5 SUPPORT: (Verified 8/31/95) American Association of University Women California Cosmetology Association California Fabricare Institute California Business and Professional Women California Nurses Association Consumers Union Equal Rights Advocates Lambda Letters Project Older Women's League Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Life AIDS Lobby ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author's office, existing law does not sufficiently protect individuals from gender-based price discrimination. This bill would prohibit gender-based discrimination in the pricing of services. According to the author, such discrimination in pricing commonly occurs in the sale of services related to haircuts, laundry, dry cleaning and alterations. The author states that Washington DC has a similar law and that Florida is considering one. ASSEMBLY FLOOR: AYES: Alpert, Archie-Hudson, Baca, Bates, Bowen, V. Brown, Burton, Bustamante, Caldera, Campbell, Cannella, Cortese, Cunneen, Davis, Ducheny, Figueroa, Friedman, Gallegos, Hannigan, Hauser, Isenberg, Katz, Knox, Kuehl, Lee, Machado, Martinez, Mazzoni, McDonald, McPherson, K. Murray, W. Murray, Napolitano, Sher, Speier, Sweeney, Tucker, Vasconcellos, Villaraigosa, Woods, W. Brown NOES: Aguiar, Alby, Allen, Baldwin, Battin, Boland, Bordonaro, Bowler, Brewer, Brulte, Conroy, Firestone, Frusetta, Goldsmith, Granlund, Harvey, Hawkins, Hoge, Kaloogian, Knight, Knowles, Kuykendall, Miller, Morrissey, Morrow, Olberg, Poochigian, Pringle, Rainey, Richter, Rogan, Setencich, Takasugi, Thompson, Weggeland NOT VOTING: Escutia, House CONTINUED CP:ctl 8/31/95 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****