Individual legislator voting records for this vote are not currently available. Includes all politicians who were in office at any point during the 2011-2012 Legislature.

SB 111 - An Act to Add Section 51.15 to the Civil Code, Relating to Civil Rights.

Civil rights: language restrictions. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
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 and Housing Act, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to adopt or enforce a policy… More
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 and 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 to persons subject to the language restriction or requirement 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. Hide
 
Status:
This bill was passed by both houses and vetoed by the Governor. It did not become law
Senate Vote: On Passage

PASSED on August 15, 2011.

voted YES: 23 voted NO: 15
2 voted present/not voting

An Act to Add Section 51.15 to the Civil Code, Relating to Civil Rights.

SB 111 — 2011-2012 Legislature

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 and 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 to persons subject to the language restriction or requirement 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… More
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 and 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 to persons subject to the language restriction or requirement 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. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Add Section 51.15 to the Civil Code, Relating to Civil Rights.
Author(s)
Leland Yee
Co-Authors
Subjects
  • Civil rights: language restrictions
Major Actions
Introduced1/18/2011
Referred to Committee
Passed Senate Committee on Judiciary4/05/2011
Passed Senate4/11/2011
Passed Assembly Committee on Judiciary6/14/2011
Passed Assembly7/11/2011
Passed Senate8/15/2011
Presented to the governor (enrolled)8/22/2011
Vetoed by Governor9/06/2011
Vetoed by Governor9/06/2011
Bill History
Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
select this voteSenate Committee on JudiciaryDo pass.4/05/2011This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Judiciary
3 voted YES 2 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenateSenate 3rd Reading SB111 Yee4/11/2011This bill PASSED the Senate
21 voted YES 14 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on JudiciaryDo pass as amended.6/14/2011This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Judiciary
6 voted YES 3 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssemblySB 111 Yee Senate Third Reading By ENG7/11/2011This bill PASSED the Assembly
50 voted YES 25 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
currently selectedSenateUnfinished Business SB111 Yee Concurrence8/15/2011This bill PASSED the Senate
23 voted YES 15 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
ActionDateDescription
Introduced1/18/2011
1/18/2011Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
1/19/2011From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 18.
2/10/2011Referred to Com. on JUD.
3/11/2011Set for hearing March 22.
3/14/2011From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
3/15/2011Hearing postponed by committee.
3/18/2011Set for hearing March 29.
3/29/2011Set, first hearing. Testimony taken. Further hearing to be set.
3/31/2011Set for hearing April 5. (Vote only.)
select this voteVote4/05/2011Do pass.
4/06/2011From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 3. Noes 2. Page 559.) (April 5).
4/07/2011Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
4/11/2011Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 21. Noes 14. Page 596.) Ordered to the Assembly.
4/11/2011In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
select this voteSenate Vote on Passage4/11/2011Senate 3rd Reading SB111 Yee
4/28/2011Referred to Com. on JUD.
select this voteVote6/14/2011Do pass as amended.
6/20/2011From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (June 14).
6/21/2011Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
6/22/2011Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
7/11/2011Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 50. Noes 25. Page 2251.) Ordered to the Senate.
7/11/2011In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage7/11/2011SB 111 Yee Senate Third Reading By ENG
8/15/2011Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 23. Noes 15. Page 1913.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
currently selectedSenate Vote on Passage8/15/2011Unfinished Business SB111 Yee Concurrence
8/22/2011Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 10 a.m.
9/06/2011In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
Vetoed9/06/2011Vetoed by the Governor.
2/29/2012Veto sustained. Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.

Total contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

21 Organizations Supported and 1 Opposed; See Which Ones

Organizations that took a position on
An Act to Add Section 51.15 to the Civil Code, Relating to Civil Rights.: Unfinished Business SB111 Yee Concurrence

21 organizations supported this bill

Advancement Project
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
American Civil Liberties Union
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
American Federation of Teachers
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Anti-Defamation League
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Asian Law Caucus
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Communities United Institute
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Immigrant Policy Center
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Language Teachers Association
http://www.caimmigrant.org/ (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Consumer Attorneys of California
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Consumer Federation of California
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Editorial – La Opinión
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Equality California
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Korean American Bar Association Of Southern California
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
National Nurses United
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
San Francisco Korean American Chamber Of Commerce
Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

1 organization opposed this bill

ProEnglish
Cannava, Jane (2011, January 20). CA Residents: Yee language bill will harm California businesses . Retrieved February 1, 2011, from ProEnglish+.

Need proof?

View citations of support and opposition

Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2012.
Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

Contributions by Legislator

Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$0$0
Joel AndersonRCA-36$1,500$7,800
Tom BerryhillRCA-14$1,500$0
Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
Ron CalderonDCA-30$6,000$0
Anthony CannellaRCA-12$1,000$4,900
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$15,600$0
Lou CorreaDCA-34$19,200$0
Kevin De LeonDCA-22$32,900$0
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$8,550$0
Bob DuttonRCA-31$1,500$0
Bill EmmersonRCA-37$2,500$0
Noreen EvansDCA-2$23,250$0
Jean FullerRCA-18$6,000$0
Ted GainesRCA-1$2,500$0
Loni HancockDCA-9$30,250$0
Tom HarmanRCA-35$1,000$0
Ed HernandezDCA-24$28,650$0
Bob HuffRCA-29$2,000$500
Christine KehoeDCA-39$2,000$0
Doug La MalfaRCA-4$1,500$0
Mark LenoDCA-3$23,100$0
Ted LieuDCA-28$23,100$0
Carol LiuDCA-21$7,450$0
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$6,500$0
Alex PadillaDCA-20$21,100$0
Fran PavleyDCA-23$54,600$0
Curren PriceDCA-26$9,200$0
Michael RubioDCA-16$19,300$0
Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$500
Joe SimitianDCA-11$0$0
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$10,338$0
Tony StricklandRCA-19$3,600$17,998
Juan VargasDCA-40$18,700$0
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$1,000$2,656
Lois WolkDCA-5$14,116$0
Rod WrightDCA-25$21,500$0
Mark WylandRCA-38$3,500$3,900
Leland YeeDCA-8$32,400$0

Add Data Filters:

Legislator Filters
Legislator Filters
Show All
NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$0$0
Joel AndersonRCA-36$1,500$7,800
Tom BerryhillRCA-14$1,500$0
Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
Ron CalderonDCA-30$6,000$0
Anthony CannellaRCA-12$1,000$4,900
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$15,600$0
Lou CorreaDCA-34$19,200$0
Kevin De LeonDCA-22$32,900$0
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$8,550$0
Bob DuttonRCA-31$1,500$0
Bill EmmersonRCA-37$2,500$0
Noreen EvansDCA-2$23,250$0
Jean FullerRCA-18$6,000$0
Ted GainesRCA-1$2,500$0
Loni HancockDCA-9$30,250$0
Tom HarmanRCA-35$1,000$0
Ed HernandezDCA-24$28,650$0
Bob HuffRCA-29$2,000$500
Christine KehoeDCA-39$2,000$0
Doug La MalfaRCA-4$1,500$0
Mark LenoDCA-3$23,100$0
Ted LieuDCA-28$23,100$0
Carol LiuDCA-21$7,450$0
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$6,500$0
Alex PadillaDCA-20$21,100$0
Fran PavleyDCA-23$54,600$0
Curren PriceDCA-26$9,200$0
Michael RubioDCA-16$19,300$0
Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$500
Joe SimitianDCA-11$0$0
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$10,338$0
Tony StricklandRCA-19$3,600$17,998
Juan VargasDCA-40$18,700$0
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$1,000$2,656
Lois WolkDCA-5$14,116$0
Rod WrightDCA-25$21,500$0
Mark WylandRCA-38$3,500$3,900
Leland YeeDCA-8$32,400$0

Interest Groups that supported this bill

$ Donated
Teachers unions$344,330
Health & welfare policy$41,716
Book, newspaper & periodical publishing$30,738
Nurses$21,620
Minority & ethnic groups$14,000
Democratic-based groups (but not official party committees) and generic liberal/progressive ones$4,500
Gay & lesbian rights and issues$0
Consumer groups$0
Human rights$0

Interest Groups that opposed this bill

$ Donated
Republican-based groups (but not official party committees) and generic conservative ones$38,254
Loading…
Date Range of Contributions
Enter a custom date range