HomeMy WebLinkAboutSB1300_20180911_LetterToJacksonCity of San Luis Obispo, Office of the City Council, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7114, slocity.org
September 18, 2018
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown
Governor, State of California
State Capitol, First Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
VIA Email: Leg.Unit@gov.ca.gov
RE: SB 1300 (Jackson) Unlawful Employment Practices: Discrimination and
Harassment.
Request for Veto
Dear Governor Brown,
The City of San Luis Obispo respectfully requests your veto on Senate Bill 1300 which would
limit the use of non-disparagement agreements and general releases, restricts the ability to
summarily adjudicate harassment claims, and seeks to impose personal liability onto
individual supervisors who make managerial decisions. These provisions will significantly
increase litigation against California cities.
SB 1300 exposes an individual to personal liability for adverse employment actions that are
not necessarily connected to the alleged harassment. This language is inconsistent with the
California Supreme Court decision issued in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership,
42 Cal.4th 1158 (2008) that determined an individual supervisor could not be held personally
liable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for retaliation. The Court properly
recognized that harassment and retaliation are different and that imposing such liability would
preclude a supervisor from performing his or her job – managing employees. This bill places
the supervisor in a direct conflict of interest with his or her employer. If the employer asked
the supervisor to discipline or terminate an employee, the supervisor may be hesitant or even
resistant given the threat of personal liability.
SB 1300 would significantly impact the City of San Luis Obispo’s ability to attract and retain
qualified supervisory and management level employees. In addition, AB 1300 would
discourage any form of succession planning into management positions.
The intent language of SB 1300 is also very concerning. The bill states that “Harassment cases
are rarely appropriate for disposition on summary judgment,” and cites an appellate court
decision for this statement. However, whether or not a case should be summarily adjudicated
should be left for a judge to decide who knows the specific facts of the case. Summary
judgment is already a very high threshold and trying to sway the courts from utilizing
summary judgment where appropriate will only clog the courts with cases that have no legal
merit.
The increased exposure to liability for public agencies remains a glaring concern. For these
reasons, the City of San Luis Obispo respectfully urges you to veto SB 1300 (Jackson).
Sincerely,
Heidi Harmon
Mayor
San Luis Obispo
cc: The Honorable Hannah-Beth Jackson, California State Senate, District 19
senator.jackson@senate.ca.gov
Camille Wagner, Legislative Affairs Secretary, Office of Governor Brown :
Leg.Unit@gov.ca.gov
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, cityletters@cacities.org